|
|
Post by Bernard Marx on Aug 18, 2021 15:51:33 GMT
Alright then. Here's another thread exploring the negative elements of the Labour Party! And I thought I was supposed to think that Labour solely=good...
Since the Keynesian "mixed-economy" economic consensus was established in 1945, which Labour leader has been the most appalling? I'd say this is an extremely variable set of contenders, with a handful being genuinely good, a third or so being OK but hamstrung by extenuating circumstances, and the rest being either ineffective or downright awful.
On another note, I hope this thread doesn't cause the forum to crash or something. These sorts of threads seem to be cursed at this point...
|
|
|
|
Post by RobFilth on Aug 18, 2021 16:59:46 GMT
Undoubtedly Scabface Bentcop Starmer, I didn't think the Labour Party could get much worse than it was under Miliband, but Starmers managed it in spades, chasing away the membership, bankrupting the party and purging thousands in pure Blairite spite for the Corbyn years.
Corbyn might have had his blindspots and been ineffectual at installing discipline amongst the self-destructive PLP, but he at least held the respect of the Unions and Membership.
I hate Tories with a passion, but I actually think Starmer is worse than Johnson and considering Johnson is a compulsive liar with the deaths of over 130,000 and the complete cock up of Brexit on his hands that's saying something!
I just wish we had an effective opposition in the country, but at the moment at the ballot box it's a choice between Blue Tory, Red Tory and Yellow Tory.
|
|
|
|
Post by mott1 on Aug 18, 2021 19:47:48 GMT
I went for 'Gordon Brown, texture like sun'. The reason is that whilst Starmer has gone from a middling start to a largely-disastrous middle, we haven't quite seen the end yet. He did a bit better today, tho I'd have thought Jodie Whittaker doing her lobotomised Victoria Wood impression could have looked statesmanlike opposite the buffoon, in such circumstances.
Peter Mandelson's autobiography sums it up well - Brown had gotten off to an OK start but then when it fell apart, it did so irreversibly - he couldn't even put his tie on straight. The fact he had to beg Blair & his cronies back to help him out summed up his desperation, and even though Blair was already damaged goods by then his downfall was remarkable. The old lady 'bigot' quote, the head in hands moment - all of Blair's ability to slip out of danger eluded poor Gordon...
|
|
|
|
Post by burrunjor on Aug 19, 2021 9:17:19 GMT
I went for Gordon Brown too, because I think history has been too kind to him. He is often thought of as simply a buffoon, but he was a callous, ambitious piece of shit too. Remember he played a role in the Iraq war, a key role. He also arguably did more to privatise the NHS than any Prime Minister before him, and as Mott pointed out his lack of charisma, idiocy and bumbling nature in interviews ensured that Labour were pretty much dead in the public's minds.
Starmer could have been worse mind you if he got the power that Brown did, but thankfully that doesn't look likely.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bernard Marx on Aug 19, 2021 16:06:33 GMT
He also arguably did more to privatise the NHS than any Prime Minister before him True, although to be fair to him, Blair already commissioned the PFI programme before Brown took office. It just came to full fruition under Brown given the late stage of New Labour's 13 year stint in government. As for me, I opted for Starmer from the off. The only individual on this list without a single redeeming quality whatsoever, and one who amalgamates all of the less enviable qualities of the previous leaders. The indecisiveness of Callaghan, the absentee nature of Foot, the arrogance of Kinnock, the soullessness of Blair, the ineptitude of Brown, the tepidity of Miliband and the meekness of Corbyn. Although a different kind of meekness- meekness towards the government rather than his own party, whereas Corbyn was the opposite. That said, Corbyn's main failings were that he principally wasn't tough enough at the worst of times. I know it wasn't in his nature to get into slinging matches (his speech after the 2019 defeat mainly took consolation in "not resorting to personal abuse"), but he should have hit back much harder against those who prominently tried to discredit him (see the Andrew Neil interview in 2019, as well as his meekly accepting the 2019 Brexit policy despite the inevitable ramifications of it- probably the biggest cock up he ever made). I know that his stronger performance in 2017 was down to a less alienating Brexit policy which meant that the party could refine its image as one of economic justice in an era where neoliberalism and a resentment for the established order remained so rife without the need to worry about identity politics or social divisions between the party's electoral coalition, but he also benefited from hitting back more explicitly during that period. See Jeremy Paxman, where Corbyn's sense of humour coupled with his unwillingness to take his shit during the interview impressed the audience present. Despite his flaws, I give him credit on the grounds that he got me engaged in British politics during an era where I initially displayed little interest in it (the 2015 election failed to grab my attention beyond the rise of UKIP and the SNP- I was worried about UKIP's emergence at the time more than anything else, as were my family), as was clearly the case with many others of my generation too. His commitment to peace and justice throughout his tenure as an MP is an impressive one, and given how much absolute flack the man has since taken since becoming leader and after being ousted, from within his own party and outside it, I'm stunned and equally impressed that he's still standing and continues to unflinchingly commit to that ethos. Going back to Starmer: Even amidst referring to the fact that he's basically the worst possible amalgamation of previous Labour leaders possible, that's not to mention that he seems to have tried his hardest to piss off his primary partisan demographic more than anybody else, whilst failing to win anybody else over given his vacuous and policy-void visage. He's effectively behaved contemptibly towards his own electoral coalition of northern working class Red-Wall voters, student working class voters in the cities who are laden with financial debt, as well as the more affluent constituencies who turned Red for the first time in 2017 (Canterbury being a prime example), whilst turning his guns towards the membership *and* failing to win anybody else over. I'm hard pressed to think of a reason why I should like him, to be honest, even putting aside my own political leanings. He's not just a morally bankrupt leader, he's an utterly useless one too. He's often compared to Miliband and Kinnock, but Miliband was more of an amiable person, and Kinnock had a greater sense of humour and occasionally knew how to actually hit back. Starmer lacks any commanding presence whatsoever. Equally, from a policy perspective, Kinnock may have also marginalised the party's left, but Starmer is the most explicitly right-wing leader the party has ever had. Not only has he eschewed Corbyn's policy platform, but has also refused to hike up corporation tax (effectively placing him to the right of Sunak financially- how is that supposed to win working class voters who are economically more left-leaning?), all whilst lacking Blair's charisma, adroit oration and showmanship *and* Corbyn's commitment to economic and social justice all at once. The worst of all worlds. A lesser degree of strategic intelligence than Corbyn, and even fewer principles than Blair. I don't recall where I heard this from, but it summarises the man most accurately. His leadership campaign promised an electable Corbyn. Instead, he gave us an unelectable Blair. |
|
|
|
Post by RobFilth on Aug 20, 2021 7:17:53 GMT
I'm hard pressed to think of a reason why I should like him, to be honest, even putting aside my own political leanings. Presumably you're supposed to like him because he has a Tory hair cut and wears a business banking suit therefore * looks * more like an archetypal "PM in waiting" in the medias eyes. His leadership campaign promised an electable Corbyn. Instead, he gave us an unelectable Blair. Absolutely. It's a pure media blindspot in that they just don't seem to be remotely aware of just how utterly despised Blair is, not just by the right but the left as well. Literally EVERYONE hates him apart from the media luvvies who wheel him out time and time again like a good panto-villain for everyone to throw things at their tv screens each time he appears. |
|
|
|
Post by ClockworkOcean on Aug 20, 2021 15:24:07 GMT
Keith. Without a doubt the most unappealing candidate for Prime Minister this country has ever seen. Fiscally to the right of the Tories, yet with the party's Corbyn-era identity politics obsession dialled up to eleven. Exactly which part of this nightmarish, worst of both worlds combination is supposed to appeal to the fiscally left-leaning, culturally conservative northern voters the party needs in order to regain power, I have no earthly idea.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bernard Marx on Aug 20, 2021 16:08:43 GMT
Keith. Without a doubt the most unappealing candidate for Prime Minister this country has ever seen. Fiscally to the right of the Tories, yet with the party's Corbyn-era identity politics obsession dialled up to eleven. Exactly which part of this nightmarish, worst of both worlds combination is supposed to appeal to the fiscally left-leaning, culturally conservative northern voters the party needs in order to regain power, I have no earthly idea. Yep, although I'm unsure how it's supposed to appeal to anyone, to be honest. The party isn't just in a state of identity-politics fixation- it's also simultaneously in a state of embarrassing flag-shagging, which means that there's no way it'll appeal to those typically repulsed by populists like Farage, as with more affluent areas. Potential Conservative defectors whom this approach might have initially appealed to are, by the looks of it, defecting to the Lib Dems instead, so I can't think of any voting demographic at all who'd be enticed by the man. Whether you're part of the northern working class, the southern working class within equally impoverished areas, the city-based working class, the more economically right-wing but socially liberal middle-class voter, or on the right or the left as a whole, I don't know who this is remotely appealing to. |
|
