Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
but he seems to be basing his whole bid on "speaking to aspiration and people who want to get on", which is indeed the theme of the whole Labour self-analysis. Have no idea what that means in actual policy terms though.
would love to see some citations for that brah
just read some profiles of Umunna. i had assumed he came from the left of the party cos pre2010 I was involved in Compass - the group set up as a counter-balance to Blairtes - and I knew he was a member of the management committee. I can see his politics have swung around quite a lot since then.
I like him but think it'll go to Ummuna as he'll be a bit easier to market as a fresh face in politics or something.
no more ruling out
I dunno what the plan is like. Hazza can keep things ticking over and who knows maybe the public will love her.
But when Harrifandom takes over twitter she'll change her mind for sure
But she won't run.
If the predicted riders run the race then I will probably plump for Dan Jarvis. Would consider voting for Liz Kendall. She's very New Labour but mostly the good bits of New Labour, which are probably the bits we need.
I don't think much of Chuka personally. Think he's too Tory-lite, as evidence by the fact that Mandelson was fawning over him on Marr earlier.
Can't be Burnham or Cooper in my opinion. Too tied to the Ed(s).
If they want to win an election, then they need a Blair -a-like. If they want to rebuild grass roots support, then they need someone fresh and brilliant like darwindude.
lol, why do you think those two objectives are opposed.
History seems to show that the last generation or so of voters don't vote in socialist labour governments.
the whole point of political campaigning is to convince everyone that you're right.
there hasn't been a socialist labour party for people to vote for though, no? they didn't win this election because they've positioned themselves as a weak tory party rather than a strong labour one.
it's pretty clear from scotland that people are willing to vote for a party with a strong anti-austerity politick, built from grass-roots campaigning, if it's an option. most importantly, people have to think that the party has a chance of regaining power. neither of those things happened in the last two elections.
Ed Miliband looked too much like a socialist. And they're the only eyes that matter. In no way did Labour position themselves as a weak Tory party. Agree that Labour win by being a strong Labour party - but a strong centrist one, not the type of Labour party that you're referencing I feel.
Scotland does not provide an adequate case study for what sort of Labour party the rest of the UK would vote for either I'm afraid.
In the flagrantly negative way that you appear to mean it obviously.
A `Blair clone` or whatever you want to call them who understands the concessions that a party needs to make to win elections, however, is much needed.
what happened in Scotland to be just down to that, it's overly simplistic. it was a combination of strong factors which moved an electorate massively away from its norm in terms of voting, and got a whole lot of non voters out to vote too. if you ask them what they were voting for, many will say anti-austerity. But a great many will have more complex reasoning, and some will have no reasoning at all, as in some constituencies, you could literally have fielded a sheepdog in a yellow rosette and it would have won by a landslide on the back of the 45/55 referendum hysteria/ hype.
I have read certain people on the left (middle class, educated people) talking about an 'anti-austerity' stance as the main reason for the SNP's success. Although it is probably a big factor for some people (probably these more 'informed' and already politicised people), it really really does not explain what has happened.
For a start, the SNP didn't even present a strong anti-austerity agenda when you look at the numbers.
But more importantly, when you actually talk to people (I have spoken to thousands of former Labour supporters who have voted SNP), they don't generally talk about austerity. Hardly anyone talks about cuts to public services and the need for more investment and a change in direction on economic policy. I wish this was what people were concerned about but it is not. People obviously don't necessarily vote in their own rational self-interest...
A few go as far as talking about the 'Red Tories' but this itself is steeped in nationalism. By far the most common sentiment was giving Scotland "a voice" - something which was a huge component of the SNP campaign (these were all over glasgow http://cache2.asset-cache.net/gc/471428610-members-of-the-public-walk-past-a-billboard-gettyimages.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=GkZZ8bf5zL1ZiijUmxa7QSiuJbd0NmuKQSl6jBzIt57UBwO0ZRgbgh1z26PluDiRcddjw%2F%2F5oDS9RtpN4FdNzg%3D%3D) . People didn't like how Scotland was being treated by the other main parties and were still relating the general election to the result of the referendum.
Nicola Sturgeon's popularity was a major factor. A lot of people said they were voting not for the SNP but for "Nicola". By contrast, Ed Miliband was still not very well received. Got things like "I just don't like the look of him"
Similarly, Labour's left wing messages about low pay and precarious employment didn't resonate on the doorstep. Nor did their market interventionist policies like 'rent controls', freezes on energy prices or taking on media monopolies. Not just in Scotland but generally across the UK, the people who these policies were aimed at (low paid workers) just aren't politicised enough to get on board with this. This shows we need better trade unions. otherwise proper labour messages will ring hollow in election campaigns.
If Labour really was just too right wing for Scotland then why did this swing to the SNP not happen years ago? New Labour has been around for over 20 years. Labour won 2 general elections after the invasion of Iraq. If anything, the party shifted to the left under Miliband.
In any case, for the Labour party to present anything like a chance for a genuinely left of centre government any time soon, they need to keep moving in the direction they took under Miliband. They need a popular, telegenic leader and to move back to some of the rhetoric aimed at upper working class people. The broader left (both those who are genuinely socialists in the Labour party and those outside the Labour party) need to continue challenging austerity and politicising casualised, low paid workers. My cousin left school at 16 and in the 8 years since, has never had a full time job. Why is she not a labour or trade union activist? the party should have links with unions but we can't do their job for them.
We really do not need a shift to the centre. This - obviously - will only continue the british version of the neoliberal consensus. there's very little point to the labour party if this is all we do. the whole point of socialism is making people see how they're being exploited by the capitalist system and enabling them to self-organise to build something different.
elections are very rarely won during the short campaign period. all we can do really is consolidate support we already had. a big problem wih the labour campaign is that they held off too long on presenting key policies. i think they got there in the end with a lot of the key issues but their fate was largely sealed. over the past 5 years, they were just too all over the place and incoherent.
last but not least... labour's defeat owes a lot to the vagaries of our electoral system. we did badly in a lot of key marginals that we needed to take. a few ukip votes here and some green votes there would have made the difference in many seats.
`the whole point of socialism is making people see how they're being exploited by the capitalist system and enabling them to self-organise to build something different`
This argument is patronising, if well intentioned. This whole myth of `well if they could see how they're being exploited, then maybe they'd see how socialism could help them` has had no greater testing than being rejected by multiple British electorates. Britain is not a socialist country. The only time it has come close was post-1945 and the key motivation there (a `common-good consensus` to borrow marckee's phrasing in the other thread) was to build a better world than the one which had just been ravaged by war. Not to do with any oppressions, real or imagined, from any system of capitalism.
You have spent a lot of time knocking on doors and talking to people about Labour and Labour's policies. And that's far more than I have done, admittedly. And I assume, as Tony Benn would always argue, that many socialist or left-wing policies have had great resonance with the people you have talked to. They always have. But, curiously, when you bang all these together as a prospective government's sole offering - the people reject it. Socialism isn't socialism if the very people it is there to both represent and protect do not vote for it.
As I posted in the other thread, Tony Blair has put it best:
`we were proud in 1997 to put forward the case for Britain’s first minimum wage. But we could never have won an election on it unless set within a broader framework. The same is true with zero-hours contracts`
I'm not a Blairite by most metrics - but this is wisdom. You do not win elections solely fighting from these positions. What you can do however is set out a broader context (I'd call this `centrist`, appreciate this is a subjective term, and you never quite know where the political centre is until people have voted on it) that people believe in, built on a concession between the values of the party and the values of the electorate. That speaks to people. It allows people to vote Labour without falling into the common perception of socialist promises being written on the backs of invisible bank notes. Miliband didn't do this sufficiently. He could've, but he didn't. For mostly reasons of his own hand, but I'll concede he received unfair personal bullying by many as a contributing factor.
I really admire the hard yards and the dedication you put into the Labour party. And you deserve better rewards than your efforts suggest. But why do you think that, this time, and perhaps the next time, that socialism can finally `win` when it has an ever-growing body of history that tells you that (regrettably) it never, ever does?
sorry if you find it patronising but it literally is the point of socialism.
" has had no greater testing than being rejected by multiple British electorates. "
my point was precisely that general elections are not a test of whether socialism is alright.
If they weren't, why did you spend so much time during the general election making the case for it to so many people?
(this would be impossible)
was to establish co-operative and equal ownership and management of the means of production by the workers.
But we could split this hair all night.
that's only part of what amounts to the capitalist mode of production.
you're kinda just explaining why genuine socialism isn't something which will ever be merely voted into existence in a liberal democracy. it's not going to be granted by the state...
to enable it by any other way?
Capitalism will destroy humanity before it destroys itself so we can't really wait and see. but, imo, the collapse of capitalism doesn't necessarily mean good things (e.g. right now when there is an absence of something to replace it with). there are different short and long term solutions. but rn we need to focus on getting out of this current crisis (economic, political, social...).
don't think whether people will "want" socialism in some sort of positivistic sense is really the right question.
I mean, in 1997 I think pretty much any Labour leader could have got a majority, although maybe not one as massive as Blair's, but pretty sure we had got to the point where no matter what, the Tories were going to lose.
because the electorate decided to usher in socialism. it was, as you say, because the electorate decided Anybody But The Tories, and that included a lot of lifetime tory voters.
Not much insight into beliefs / ideology, but a lot about his character. Lack of parliamentary experience is probably a benefit at this point, the other main criticism seems to be his speaking / ability to ~inspire~, but not sure that's entirely a negative either. Serious and hard working will probably play off well against Boris Johnson, especially given respective backgrounds.
I don't have any issue as such with Burnham or Cooper but either would be a really stupid move.
is down to him being a complete unknown who people can project their dream Labour leader fantasies onto (?)
which is a prerequisite of getting in. He's also less about big dream ideology (or gives that off).
And again, he 'gives off' the impression of being less about big dream ideology - I'd say that's projecting.
according to the Mirror.
(to not compromise on his family time, his children having lost their mother a few years ago) only works to heighten his appeal, bless him.
so he's probably best off staying out of it really.
the name just makes me think of the upcoming cooler-than-thou new Labour Leader from the final season of The Thick of It who rises from nowhere to get Nicola Murray's job.
Plus, I'm watching Partridge again at the moment and that 'Dan' comes into my mind to.
What's in my head is infinitely more bizarre.
But he is a bit old
- Handsome as fuck
- Will inspire loads of Sun headlines based around the fact that Hunt rhymes with Cunt
I'm sure he's going to be just what labour needs to persuade Jimmy from Govan that they are for him.
The grizzled old legends in the northern former mining towns have been through enough with the Labour party - best not let them wake up one day and tell them the new leader of the Labour party goes by the name of Tristram...
Was bad enough in Hackney when a Jules became their mayor.
that somebody should be judged by their name in this day and age. And I am quite sure that the intelligentsia and the progressive hackney-dwelling lentil-knitting labour voters won't bat an eyelid at it. But the old guard up north will be all OVER MY DEAD FACKING BODY are we going to be led by a mimsy called Tristram. And while it's ridiculous that it could be a thing, it will be, mark my words.
Think Tristram will have big image problems in the North. He doesn't look like anyone from the North either. But like I said earlier, sometimes image is the only judgement people will make in choosing who to vote for. No point in attempting to fight that (although I had a naïve crack at that for 4 years with Miliband eh...)
but have never been sure he's ready to be leader. he's too "london", too smug, and then he wrote this article which makes me think it would be the end of the labour party if he was to become leader.
Andy Burnham would be a strong choice, as would Tristram Hunt.
but I think there's quite a lot in your `too London` comment. As much as we like to be `above it all` and dispense with image in favour of substance... image does matter. For some, that's the only political judgement that will inform their vote.
Genuine q. I mean he was clearly pretty posh, but
Obviously Blair is synonymous with the `Islington` elite or whatever you want to call it but I think the game's changed a bit since the mid '90s in that London™ has even more negative connotations for many and seems even more distant from the majority of the electorate.
Could well be wrong here - it's just a feeling after all. Plus we forget that Blair in '97 was a special case in that the winds of political change largely blew him into power. Interesting thing about Blair is that you got the feeling that no-one quite trusted him, but they all still voted for him!
who on more than one occasion was tasked with writing Blair's (VERY occasional) NUFC programme notes :D
and i look forward to reading Hunt's "manifesto" (which is pretty much what that Chuka article is and dismissing him similarly.
I'd be great at it. At least give me Scottish Labour to prove myself before taking the top job in a few years.
...is alright by me.
All hail emperor DingDong
to apply Labour principles to modern workforce without straying too far right. Would be nice to see a leader who can usher that in.
I think a lot of people have taken an interest in DJ because fuck me if you can get Yorkshire on-side when you're not from Yorkshire that's one hell of a charismatic man.
All the offer needs to be at the next election is `we can keep the economy growing without being cruel like the Tories often are` then that seems fine to me.
Plenty of routes to success/failure within that though. Think most people would ultimately like to know that they can continue to be better off but within a fairer context (although that fairer context has to contain strong lines on welfare and immigration, regrettably)
The previous expenses rinsing idle shit of an MP in his seat. Also Barnsley Central is one of those places where Labour could literally carve a face into a potato and get it elected.
He's been a really good MP though. Very involved in constituency issues, available and receptive to his constituents, that kind of thing. I'm glad he's not standing - chances are my parents are going to have their benefits challenged at some point again during this parliament and he had their back last time.
make a politics version, where you can take control of any political party and pick their policies and choose who you want in each job, etc, trying to win elections? This is either the best or worst idea I've ever had.
Take Plaid Cymru to a majority in the house of commons! Lead your UKIP candidates in the European elections! Deal with your minister for education's tabloid sexting sting!
sort it out within the month please
I like that game but I'm rubbish at it. Always get turfed out after one term. I guess I'm just too Real for the British electorate.
only you were starting a revolution. I think the boring answer is it's possible to make a football sim around databases and stats, not so much a political one.
all the polls looking good, then the exit poll comes through...*quits without saving*
where you took control of some third world country & were given carte blanche to be a complete bastard & make as much money as you could & escape in a helicopter before you got lynched. Suspect a young David Cameron would've been familiar with it.
not sure what it's called though
Or knowing someone called 'Tristram'.
Done great work with limited resources.
Nothing about his parliamentary career, particularly what seems like an uninspiring stint shadowing Education, suggests he’d be much use as leader. Is it just the fact he’s interested?
this cunt can do one
(probably worth keeping a list of everyone making mock-horror replies to that, and seeing how many days until they say something as crass...)
Tim from The Office in serious mode
Andy Murray's Mum
we're doing nothing to dispel the idea that music and football fans are inherently sexist. no real support or even really a mention of any of the women here, and zero votes for any of them in this poll:
that was more a comment on her being popular amongst people of a certain age and musical disposition cos she likes britpop
until I know who's running and who I've read up on. I've only really been on to dig in on the Umunna dissing.
But to provide some rebutting to your point - the most impressive candidate I've seen so far is Liz Kendall. Watch her interview on the Sunday Politics yesterday. It's fucking brilliant. Articulates clear, sensible positions and talks in plain English and not lefty buzzwords. And she completely wrongfooted Andrew Neil when she grilled him about how he's fared since the recession. Not ONE politician managed to do that in the election campaign.
Obviously one interview doesn't make a leader, and I don't know if she just lacks the requisite experience*, but she seems like one hell of a politician if you ask me.
*-As they all do. We can't deny that this isn't a weak field.
The absolute best bet for Labour imo is Liz Kendall.
Chuka would resonate worse than Ed in the Midlands + should go for mayoral candidacy; Burnham has too much baggage and is too lightweight imo and I don't think enough people would warm to cooper.
You couldn't make it up!
she's married to the teacher from The Inbetweeners!? Was not expecting that.
thought that was pretty on the money
First time in a while.
that'd be a turn up
(any excuse for that gif)
Does this make sense to anyone?:
"Umunna travelled to Swindon, where the party failed to win two key seats, to make his announcement on his Facebook page."
Maybe his broadband isn't working.
Makes a crumb of sense although he was probably there for microseconds. That's enough, don't you agree?
Or Gary Busey
I'm not sure it makes much difference - the early analysis I've seen from the party seems to be individuals largely ascribing their own personal views to the reasons for defeat, many of them conflicting with each other entirely - the Blairites wanting to go back to the right, others blaming the splintering vote on the left. About the only thing I've seen that I can agree with for sure is whoever it was saying they fucked up in the first 6-12 months where the "mess Labour left us" narrative was established.
Unless there's a candidate who's coming to the table without a specific set of solutions and rather wants to spend the first part of their leadership doing a serious more in depth analysis of where Labour have gone wrong they're just going to fail again - but I doubt that's going to be a winning pitch, particularly if it's equated to Miliband's "blank sheet of paper".
Anything else is just papering a different face and presentation style over the same old issues that's plagued the party since Blair's third term.
By contrast, I've already seen one or two reasonable pieces about of where some Lib Dems feel they need to go now - which is largely going down the hard route of re-establishing themselves as a party of principles and not selling out policies that are important to their voters so readily.
It sounds like they're going to move left and I'd be surprised if they voted with this government much.
They built themselves up last time by focusing on local elections to build up a party network and trust with voters, but that's a long road - it's not completely unlikely that they're on the road to total wipeout.
if their next leader understands why they've been punished and successfully manage to break with the Clegg leadership plus Labour fail to properly understand what's gone wrong since '97, they've got a chance to pitch the last 8 years as an aberration and gradually regain trust. They're still strong in some local areas despite being hammered hard from 2011 onwards, so there is the potential to rebuild, if they get it right.
As you say, it's a very long road to recovery though and they're *never* going to be able to betray their core values again without killing the party forever. What Clegg never understood was that the public would have had some respect for his decision to go into coalition with the Tories if he'd not appeared so enthusiastic about it for the first 3.5 years.
it feels as though no one is really sure what the core values are any more. A great many of them were not actually very liberal at all in their voting records, or at least not in a way that resonates to those with a belief in the principles underpinning 'classic' liberalism.
I realise they would have been voting to the party line, but still.
Mainly because I don't know who's stayed loyal to them, but there are potentially going to be a few make-or-break moments with this minority government where they'll have to either support or vote down the Tories (probably less likely with only 8 MPs, but still). If they stay passively neutral they'll irritate their support, if they back the Labour they'll irritate their support, if they back the Tories etc etc.
As you say, it'll be a case of 'sticking to their principles', but they still have to decide what those principles are. It's going to take a very savvy leader to keep them afloat.
I know a couple of people who've stayed loyal to them, but they're Orange Book types and I don't think wider redemption lies that way. There's been notable discontent amongst the grassroots at their conferences in recent years, so based on that alone I think the soul of the pre-Clegg party still is in there somewhere, and their traditions will lend themselves better to leaders listening to the grassroots than Labour, but it's definitely a difficult path to any kind of redemption.
but the idea of having a centre-right party, a centre-left party, and then one in the middle doesn't quite make sense these days. If Labour go for Chuka (with Mandelson lurking in the shadows) it doesn't leave a lot of room for the Lib Dems...
Clegg just proved that the electorate aren't intersted in an establishment party that has an identity simply of "not Tory or Labour". He said a lot of sensible stuff during the campaign, but the core pitch was awful.
I'm legit considering wasting £150 forming a new liberal party or something. I genuinely think it's the last we'll see of them in terms of ever being serious again.
Hahaha imagine if I ran for MP. Worst
They're back! In pog form!
genuinely questioning whether I will vote in the Labour leadership election. Not so much because the candidates will be/are impressive, but because I'm genuinely doubting if I can make a positive contribution to the decision. Having not only voted for Miliband last time, but voted for him precisely because I thought he'd be good at things it turned out the electorate didn't think he was good at, I wonder if my vote might well just be at best random noise, at worst drowning out someone who actually does know wtf the decision should be.
Strange times in the Labour party. I can actually see into their offices at the moment. Not exactly a hive of activity, although at least they've taken down most of the blackout they barricaded themselves in with for the last few days.
but I think if there's no candidate to the left of centre then the least we can do is vote for someone competent and popular.
i think the problem in this election wasn't so much ed but lots of the people around him not being able to properly support what he was trying to do.
it's a very weird time for us...
the problem was more that Ed was too insular with his trusted `inner-circle`. He chose the people around him - he carries a large amount of the can for their shortcomgins
Michael Dugher's good in this New Statesman interview with regards to it. Critical, but fairly and sympathetically so: http://www.newstatesman.com/staggers/2015/05/too-many-pointy-heads-and-too-few-street-fighters-labours-michael-dugher-what-went
(it's written by a woman who campaigns against working and single mothers, having married someone who earns enough for her to be able to give up her job and live in East Dulwich)
For all the good it did him.
'We should just judge him on his policies, I hear you say. Fine if that is what you want to do – knock your socks off. I will be judging him on the fact that he introduces the electorate to his girlfriend and not wife, thanks all the same. '
it's just ridiculous
Plenty of voices of similar ludicrousness, from the most viewed news website in the world.
Party at the mercy of THE UNIONS!!
I mean I'd be terrible but so will anyone actually running for it, so what've they got to lose?
so long as no one asks any questions about drugs as I intend to be sponged off my gizzards for the duration of the campaign
why do we need a leader?
having 'a' leader is really unnecessary and is clearly damaging in terms of that leader's perceived weaknesses being projected on the whole party
there are a couple of political parties in Sweden that have spokespeople instead of leaders
No reason why you can't have Sporty Labour, Scary Labour, Ginger Labour, Baby Labour & Posh Labour - something for everyone
who would be prime minister if they won?
Cos they won't win
But constitutionally anyone can be the Prime Minister if they can convince the Monarch that they have the ability to enact HRH's laws in the Commons
vocal trade unionist, former head of the num and the tories would have a field day with his son
of Labour's economic record on QT just now but then he decided to bail at the last minute. He seems annoying.
could swap parties. And no-one would bat an eyelid.
(Also, re: QT. 4 white men and only 1 woman on the panel. All went to paid for schools. As did Dimbo. Farage on again, and 75% of the time spent talking about UKIP. Gets incrementally worse every week.)
That audience guy was so annoying. How come labour don't go in hard on the Tories when people shout at them for 'ruining the economy' are they just trying not to be mean? It's never challenged like ever.
He seemed really familiar. I tend to lean away from crying 'plant!' but it wouldn't surprise me if he's actually a serial panel show audience gobshite.
then how would one best go about it?
Is joining at the bottom end the best idea? that would just get you 'moulded' by the extant organisational and informal forces that give channels to the top, wouldn't it? Obviously the 'extant' in party politics is not fit for the peoples purpose, and yet it would just be climbing up slopes for the sake of it, just to start a new party from afresh and build it up..........is the cuckoos approach the best? or should it be more overt?
that'll probably come out in the Sunday papers.
his statement kind of hints at something like that
but I reckon it might be 'revealed' that he's bisexual/gay and that he's had some kind of fling with another man. This shouldn't/wouldn't of course preclude him from the leadership (unless he's being doing it behind his girlfriend's back and there's a 'trust' element to it), but it will be a personal invasion too far and he probably thinks it's not worth the hassle.
As I say, i'm making this up and haven't heard anything, but you never know...
so very good *guess*
as his relationship is fairly new it kind of makes sense that he wouldn't it to be exposed to the pressures of media attention although it's unfortunate that that's even a factor.
I've also heard that his girlfriend and his parents have been harassed by the papers since he announced he was going to stand.
if Labour want to actually get back in. Someone make him interested. Just had a look at the other candidates, not a chance in hell of winning anything with any of them .
maybe make his brother (for life) stand down and trigger a bye-election before September? Seems plausible.
but I don't think she'd win Labour the election. So I'd probably say David Milliband although I can't help but think it'd be kind of devastating to Ed if he actually ended up winning.
mid Labour but business style appeal that will win an election after (another) 5 years of Cameron for sure. It should have been him not Ed in the first place. Nice guy (Ed) but the general public smelt 'union left' and in the privacy of the polling booth they slayed him.
Who's going to be leader of the opposition in the Commons? Alex Salmond?
Probably just picked the most Scottish sounding name they had.
thing at a moments notice surely? That's why I thought he did it anyway.
He's got a nice slim figure, I guess
Probably quite nice to the people in the office, although possibly quite distant as well.
"I'm useless without my morning coffee!"
that David Miliband is the least pleasant politician they have met.
Case study of two but... I also met him once and he seemed like a bit of a cheb. Looks a lot less statesmanlike in the flesh, which is in odd contrast to his brother.
The Labour Party can't just appeal to its base, only when its the party of aspiration can it win. Its been a tough journey but I am confident in my decision to support Chuka Umunna - in fact, I'd say he is Labour's only option going forward. Everyone forgets that Blair won 3 elections.
Anyway, I haven't read the rest of this thread because I've been thinking so long and hard about the question in the OP. Will give it a skim and see what other's thoughts are. Chuka for leader!
So basically Chuka has dropped out because you can't be a party leader and actually be a normal person. So they'll end up with someone who isn't a normal person, cool.
During a recent visit to Labour HQ I noticed a coffee mug with 'You don't have to be mad to work here, but it helps' written on it, which as far as I'm concerned outdid Liam Byrne's note in terms of the party's brazen and outspoken contempt for the electorate. For shame!
so maybe feels 2025 is better for him.
There's also chat he might run for mayor.
Bad vibes from the elder Miliband I do get
Backed up by his strategist dream team of John McTernan and Blair MacDougall.
Sounded like he'd been writing it for months.
But his serial-killer-trying-to-butter-up-a-granny bedside manner trumps any of the words he'll ever utter. Also, aster not quite managing to suss him initially, and having considered the lizard option, I've decided that he's just genuinely a bit thick and chronically out of his depth.* And that's completely discounting his oft-cited backstory of nine-years-at-uni-without graduating. He may also be a sociopath or sutin. Moreso than her average politicians, anyway. And he's probably having/had a public breakdown, which is very sad to see from a human point of view.
Anyway, despite just about scraping together a vote of support, he's just this moment decided to throw in the towel. Goodnight, sweet prince.
wait, wrong thread
...the only `juice` on Chuka this weekend was that he's a member of this slightly weird private members club: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3084677/Exposed-Chuck-Chuka-s-shady-secret-Labour-MP-belongs-members-den-300-cognac-locker-bar-named-rattled-leadership-contender.html
Seems like a few people need to reassess their sources.
Can imagine that it's not a good look for a Labour leader to be nailing £300 cognac in an underground millionaires lair, but nothing exactly scoop-tastic is it.
Rachel Reeves has said she's backing him which has quite a lot of sway.
Can't help but begin to think with him at the helm it's another 5 doomed years for Labour.
at every possible opportunity.
From the right, mid-Staffs. From the left, `privatising` bits of the NHS.
And he can get bent over by everyone for being the Unions' preferred candidate (the poisoniest chalice of them all).
All of these positions are unfair, of course, but that doesn't mean that they don't exist.
They have to pick someone from the 2010 intake of Labour MPs. Anyone that has any links to the last Labour Government is doomed.
Clearly, Tory attacks that basically everything is the fault of the last Labour Government seem to have stuck, and the 'let's not let them fuck it all up again' line aopears to have worked. If Burnham becomes leader, the Tories will just keep hammering it. And given the NHS is the one area where Labour need to keep on the front foot as it's one of the few they can dominate the Tories, the Mid Staffs problem is all the rope Burnham needs to hang himself (it'll be the new "there's no money left").
As you say, it almost becomes irrelevant whether it's justified or not, in political/electoral terms. And if Labour can't outright win the NHS debate, I don't think they stand much chance on any of the other major issues.
By electing someone from the 2010 intake it neutralises them from a lot of those attacks as they directly linked to it in the way Miliband/Balls/Burnham/Cooper etc are (or were).
that Labour will always beat the Tories on the NHS. Much like the Tories will always beat Labour on the economy. These things are set in the electorate's mind.
I don't think you can have the same messaging for 2 elections straight either. 10 years of `They crashed the car!` is too much. I don't think the electorate actually know who has links to what past govts. tbh apart from the Senior cabinet folk. If Jack Straw ran for leadership, for instance, then I'd see your point but Andy Burnham - think he's spared.
The reputation of the last Labour government has become so toxic, it's similar to the position the Tories were in during the 00s - they had to have a leader (and Shadow Cabinet) drawn from post-97 MPs to get back in.
Admittedly it's a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy because the longer you're out of power, the more likely your leadership will be formed from newer MPs, but still...
The Labour brand is tainted no matter who's leader I think.
They had to move on from the sleaze and Nasty Party stuff, Labour have to move on from the overspending/economic competence stuff. Tbh they're more likely to get that from a Tory fuck up and consequent loss of credibility than anything else, but even in that event they'll benefit from having a post-2010 leader.
The deaths of any parties are always prematurely written. My old man honked on for 10 years about how we'd seen the end of the Tories post-97. And look at them now.
Labour's time will come again. One thing's certain in politics - the political wind always eventually changes.
But for the sake of argument, if Rifkind had beaten Cameron in the leadership election then the Tories would have struggled to claw back as many seats they did in 2010. Similarly I think Burnham or Cooper would struggle more than newer candidates.
Cameron was a fresh-faced, new, electable Tory. I get that. But with other qualities which people deem PM materials (crucially)
Not sure that anyone in this current Labour crop has PM `look and feel` yet. Simply having a new-er face distanced from the past is only part of the puzzle.
There was a programme on Radio 4 last week where they got audio diaries from self-declared floating voters over the year or so leading up to the election. One of them in one of his early entries said he'd just been to New York and waxed lyrical about how lucky we are to have the NHS, and how it should be protected.
He voted tory.
but generally what people mean when they say that is that across the population, Labour have a significant lead on the NHS... somewhere around 40% favouring Labour to 25% favouring the Tories if memory serves. That's still a significant number of people who think the Tories would do a better job on health, and not all of them are going to be free-market zealots who want to see the NHS torn apart.
The same goes for the economy - the Tories may lead on it, but that doesn't mean there aren't people around who believe Labour would do a better job with it.
Beyond that, it doesn't always translate to voting intention - your chap there may well have decided that a combination of other things were more important to him in casting his vote than the NHS, even though he could have thought Labour had the best policies in that area.
In fact in that programme, quite a large proportion of the participants ended up voting Labour, making it perhaps a bit less representative than the BBC had hoped. For most of them you could get a feel through their contributions that they had a "main" preference, that they were battling to some degree to justify to themselves. In this man's case he seemed very much a tory from the start, and it was little surprise to me that that's where he ended up. I think you're both reading rather too much stridency into my observation above: I was simply pointing out the point that colinz made, namely that there certainly are tory voters who believe that they have the right answers for the NHS, or at the very least don't believe that they are a threat to it.
what a nasty snide little woman-hater he is too. He was despicable to Shami Chakrabarti.
being despicable to Shami Chakrabarti? Not condoning it in the slightly, but she's probably irritated us to the point of wanting to be despicable to her at points, given the chance.
he made about David Davis:
"To people who get seduced by Tory talk of how liberal they are, I find something very curious in the man who was, and still is I believe, an exponent of capital punishment having late-night, hand-wringing, heart-melting phone calls with Shami Chakrabarti."
When she complained he apologised. To read "woman-hater" into that requires a heroic amount of self-delusion.
Seems the (completely wrong and petty) point of that was to smear Davis. Shouldn't have mentioned Chakrabarti's name but he smeared her by association rather than directly. Deserves big admonishment for that but, like you say, big claim for that to be indicative of woman-hating.
which amounts to women hating to me.
fair enough. It'll be entertaining to see any of the government front bench trying to skewer him on his attitudes to lesbian procreation rights. I'm thinking they might put Pickles on that one.
useful contribution from cg
I know he spent quite a while at DCMS before moving to health - was only about the last year of Brown's government if I recall correctly - so I think there's a certain amount of plausible deniability in terms of individual responsibility (he wasn't even in the department at the time), even if there's not in terms of collective responsibility as a member of that government.
Not ideal, by any measure, but it's certainly not the same as Ed Balls being in the Treasury during the global financial crisis that Labour caused and there's a risk that if people go on the attack on him over Mid-Staffs it'll backfire in terms of using something like that for political purposes.
The "privatisation" bit is a bit more of a plausible attack angle for me - less emotive, less likely to backfire and as it's a policy decision it's something where collective rather than individual responsibility sticks better.
Although, as you say, backed up by the likes of Ed Balls.
And we know the truth isn't necessarily a pre-requisite for them sticking, as we've seen with the Labour/economy guff (although none of these will be as toxic and should be able to be explained away... not ideal for a new leader mind).
The privatisation tag will only be as the result of lefty in-fighting. Might incur the wrath of those idiots at the National Health Action Party but I can't imagine any Tory voters being bothered by it.
Seems a bit harsh.
to the concept and the romance of a 100% `publically funded` NHS than any other yardstick or measurement. They seem more concerned with what the NHS represents then the quality of care it dispenses. Which strikes me as fucking ludicrous. But there we go.
is integral to ensuring the quality of care it gives
They don't seem to buy any arguments that, y'know, that way it is funded might be a tad unsustainable on its own.
If we're going down the graphic design route...
"“We can’t be set against the government’s recent cut in corporation tax for the future. Our rhetoric can’t be set against the wealth creators and drivers of our future economic growth..."
don't like Yvette Cooper either
I voted for them in the election. But apparently, being against 1) tax avoidance and 2) zero hour contracts makes them "anti-business". No new leader will be allowed to do anything even remotely adventurous so it's all over. Those two things aren't "anti-business", they're "anti-people" and we coped for hundreds of years without them.
and people might be saying stuff behind my back, like "ooh, he's not very pro-business is he?" and maybe that's why I'm not more popular
and as they only represent 6 million or so people in the UK I fear that's really anti-democratic compared to you being supported by a handful of billionaires.
I couldn't help but think of "Losing My Edge" by LCD Soundsystem. :)
Apologies for trivialising your extremely valid and true point.
He was there at the first Kinnock speech.
it's the fucking shit cunts that make up the populace of this terrible country
how many people even own businesses? isn't it about 10?
but I wouldn't start a small business myself unless I knew I could be really good to everyone that worked for me (and lots of businesses fall into that category). And I heard nothing in the Labour manifesto that was anti-good businesses.
but businesses employ* a lot of you, so you don't have to be a business owner to have an interest in businesses continuing to flourish.
*if you're on zero hours contracts, then I'm sorry that sucks. I think they're awful and should only be used to cover emergency shortfalls in workforce. does this make me anti-business/ I don't think so. Most decent businesses ought to be able to plan their resourcing requirements in accordance with their business plan, recent management accounts and cash flow forecasts and fulfil that using a blend of perm, fixed contract and agency staff, without going down this road.
That's why I think Milliband was onto the start of something with his "responsible capitalism" theme. It didn't really develop far enough or with enough nuance though.
`producers vs. predators` and, in doing so, people started to become scared of what he might do.
I don't think this was because there isn't a desire for businesses/capitalism to be `fairer`. Fairness is one of the things the electorate likes best! It's just that Miliband's language suggested he wanted to `take on` businesses and `radically change` things. It was the wrong electorate to take it to - one that was scared about its jobs, its childrens futures and had memories of being unemployed last time. Cameron's `steady as she goes, dear!` vibes won comfortably here.
I was chatting to someone a few years back (a labourer) who said `It's alright for you middle class people - you can afford to vote for all this socialism nonsense. We can't! If it fucks up - you'll be alright but us lot are fucked`.
The thing that surprised me about that whole zero hours debate was that business owners were willing to stand up and say they couldn't function if they were banned. Like basically admitting that they cant innovate or adapt.
'Creasy has long been a fan of indie band The Wedding Present and wrote an essay to accompany the re-release of their album Seamonsters in 2012.'
My bed is so wet right now
to disown the last manifesto this can only mean one of two things:
1) They have disowned the manifesto *only* because the electorate didn't like it enough to put Labour in government, in which case they have no conviction.
2) They think the manifesto was wrong fundamentally and yet campaigned for it anyway, in which case they are disingenuous.
Who'd have thought it.
If they thought the manifesto was fine but needed a new leader to present the arguments you'd be saying they were the `one more heave, comrade!` candidate or some shit.
was 'fine' yet though (post-election anyway).
But you're right, they're in a sticky situation. To continue pushing the same manifesto ideas post-election looks arrogant (the public were just to stupid to know what's best for them...), and to disown it either lacks conviction or looks disingenuous, as above.
It's unfortunate for them, but I guess it's the same for any party which outright loses an election - it's not just a Labour problem. Damned if they do, damned in they don't. Whatever they try, it's very easy for the so-called 'right wing media' to spin it negatively.
Or at least hope three leaderless months will do the job in that regard.
People don't really care about conviction or genuineness if they don't think they can vote for it. Miliband and his ideas will be forgotten very quickly.
But yeah Labour's route back in in 2020 looks very difficult from here. Although not the impossible task people are saying. They won't be facing Cameron in 2020 and so much can change in 5 years. A Labour party that is seen as competent, compassionate and with a keen ear for the concerns of the `average person` is electable in any year to be honest.
(Its you that introduced the word 'stuipid', I'd prefer the term," too unsophisticated in the machinations of politics to be able to discern through the fug of misdirection, incorrect focus, fibs, boasts, and party politicing" to be able to discern what the possible implications are from the limited and compromised choices they are offered.
It takes a party political mind to reduce that all down to a soundbite, and a tory to actually put their own thoughts into the mouths of their political opponants i.e. 'too stupid'
was that they put far too much focus on how they were going to sell 'Weird Ed' to the public, rather than concentrating on coherent arguments and policies. I don't think Ed's personal ratings were too much of a problem, but thinking they would be a problem was a problem (?). Maybe a more PR friendly candidate would have avoided all that.
Trouble is, until the short campaign (and even throughout it) a lot of people weren't willing to give Labour a proper hearing on coherent arguments or policy not just because of the "weird Ed" stuff, but also because they'd lost the economic arguments in 2010 and they never managed to reconcile that. Honestly, not sure there was a lot wrong with the manifesto as such (or at least if there was, I don't think that's what was at fault), it's just that Labour failed to put themselves in a position where people were willing to even listen in the first place.
It was so...underwhelming. The big sell they made on it was that it was all costed, which was a further concession to the idea that they'd overspent and caused the crash. I think Miliband gained a lot of ground on the Tories with his one-nation stuff, taking on Murdoch and energy price freezes, but none of the stuff he'd been doing well on was reflected in the manifesto, it was a real dank squid.
but if people aren't listening in the first place, it doesn't matter how inspiring your pitch is, particularly after being filtered through the media. I don't think enough people were actually listening to them.
best to put some attention worthy policies in it. 'Quietly sensible' isn't a massively exciting USP.
Was also notable when looking at those votematch type websites that you couldn't always work out which ones were Labour's. Totally indistinct.
I thought that was given up on some time ago. It's that the recession was a global problem, but in the run-up to it, in times of unprecedented growth, Labour kept spending endlessly rather than putting money aside. As a result, when the recession did happen (even though it may not have been Labour's fault directly) they were left unable to react to it effectively - which is a slightly different criticism.
The whole 'fix the roof while the sun is shining' line...
but it's still not true. Public debt as a proportion of GDP was lower throughout Blair and Brown' time as PM than during Major's term and most of Thatcher's.
The mud that would justifiably stick relates to the last Labour government's failure to regulate the financial sector adequately and the consequent increase in private debt, which is what we're currently having to try to pay off with public money. But of course that argument can't be made by the current government because a) they haven't fixed it themselves and b) they campaigned vociferously for less regulation in opposition.
that 44% of London thought the manifesto worth voting for, which is greater than any national vote share that Tony Blair got.
Obviously comparing London with the rest of the UK is a futile business, but `urbanisation` will doubtless change the shape of the electorate over the next 20 or so years, with more of it living in town and cities which might follow London voting trends. Just a thought.
It's not the 1800s anymore.
but I thought the general consensus was that the entire world is going to be living in cities by 2030 or summat.
gone from 80% in 2004 to 82% last year. 78% in 94...and 84. Definitely a trend but not exactly a flood.
given the urban depopulation that took place in the post war period, but I think the clearest split will be as a result of the owner-occupiers/tenants divisions that are opening up between urban and non-urban populations.
But yeah, perhaps they could've done better at not inadvertently drawing attention to them.
that the problem with Labour's pro-austerity manifesto was that it was too left-wing. Maybe it's time to outflank the Tories on the right - they'll never expect it!
joking aside, both approaches and both brands of politics are not radical enough to address the problems, they are still chucking mud from the long term 'irrelvant' pool of party politics, single termism. \they should be looking forward to taking on the problem as a whole.....unless its just accepted that they cant do that and they just have to piss around in the meanwhile
is as you've discovered yourself on here, any pitch that radical is likely to be met with derision rather than mass backing. If you can't get elected in the first place, you can't put your ideas into action.
in my posts today I have instead ranted on about short to medium term (like in the in or out of eurp thread) because, as you say, democratic party political systems cannot change course to the degree that might be needed, whilst those countries are still relatively comfortable.
i.e. of course comfortable democracies cannot face the bare truths.....be that as it may, a sort of insult, we still have to work with this though, so yes, I need to work put how much(If at all) I should not mention more radical intent. what is best is to manage the short and medium term so that the longer term change can be aimed for practically, obviously to aim for it now would cause more harm in the short term due to reaction, and it is not my 'radical' intent to harm anyone or any grouping.
at some of the stuff coming out of the candidates' mouths at the moment. When I first heard Liz Kendall's comments reported last week I almost ruled her out on the spot, although reading the interview later it seemed less grimly worng-headed.
I guess the game is one of political positioning at the moment and perhaps not too much should be read into what they're all saying right now. To me the whole "we were too anti-business" line is a completely wrong-headed crock of shit.
In any case now is definitely not the time to be formulating the next manifesto. A promise of a free weekly cheese sandwich to every hardworking family will be popular, but won't get many votes on board in five years' time. First and foremost what the Labour party needs right now is an effective leader of the opposition, and the task for the next two or three years is most definitely to prevent the more dire proposals of the current government and to campaign for a yes vote in the EU referendum. Also on the to do list is attempting to recover potentially sympathetic voters in Scotland, and to counter UKIP in the north. Those are pressing tactical tasks.
I stand by my original hunch that unless the current government totally ballses up the economy then they will win again in 2020, regardless of what Labour proposes. It's just what always happens. I think perhaps I'm being swayed towards Burnham, because he's dull, competent, not ideologically driven down any cul-de-sacs, and possibly dumpable before the next election if necessary.
Could actually see them joining the campaign for voting reform. Unless they wipe out the SNP they're pretty much condemned to never have a majority again, might as well embrace it and diminish SNP influence/ensure no-one else gets an absolute majority either.
Just realised this is going to limp on, right through the summer until September.
but not if discussed ad nauseam, which it will be by about mid June. if not before.
This is only here because the Tories haven't done any real nasty stuff yet.
Once they do this thread will die till August or so
"Labour’s new shadow chancellor, Chris Leslie...believes the party must re-build itself by appealing to the readers of Which? magazine."
"Leslie says the party allowed itself to be portrayed as too keen to step in and take over where the market was failing."
The Labour Party is the fucking worst
better regulation and stronger protection for people?
The Which? magazine that's for complete spods.
raises a good point: what's the point in Labour winning a general election if they're going to do much the same sort of stuff as the Tories would
is always going to get a bit of a shinning on that. From what I've seen of Kendall I think her pitch is more out of pragmatism than Conservatism (`what matters is what works`) etc.
Not sure Yvette Cooper's the best one to snark about a fellow leadership contendee moving into Tory territory mind, what with her `4 years until immigrants get any benefits` position (an increase on the 2 years in Miliband's manifesto).
The race hasn't sufficiently moved into candidates saying `what I would do` as opposed to `this is what sort of vibe I go for` to make any meaningful proclamations but... Liz Kendall's impressed me the most so far. And I think I'm right in saying she's the candidate who the Tories least want, which is always worth noting.
the candidate the Tories least want probably reflects the one they see as most similar to them, it's hardest to demonstrate that political separation. h2h
The candidate the Tories least want is the one they identify as most likely to beat them.
Not saying that's the sole, or even most important, veil through which to choose the next Labour leader but it's worth paying attention to.
obviously that's not neccessarily on the table and one doesn't follow the other, but i'd like that is my point
Corbyn (y) (y) (y) (y) (y) (y) (y) (y) (y) (y) (y) (y) (y) (y) (y) (y) (y)
obviously the chances of him ever being PM (or even leader) are as close to zero as most things can get, but he's a good lad, being a good lad
hence little care, but maybe he'll steer the conversation in an interesting direction
Does he have any chance though being seen as an old school lefty? The party might feel the press would be too negative, they called Milliband Red Ed for being slightly left wing. What'll they say about Jezza?
just putting his name out there as an alternative
appaz it's unlikely all the candidates will be able to stand. Are there 25 left-wing Lao okay DiS has gone mental and I can't see what I'm typing. This may be going out into the void. Woooooooooooo. Like a ghost.
you are a dick
nor will he even get close.
but this is fantastic news in my eyes. him running could likely have a similar effect to bernie sanders throwing his hat into the ring against hillary: shift the debate out of the very muddy centre toward the left and force some of the other candidates into more defined (and maybe even more progressive) positions.
should be very interesting to see how this plays out.
i think corbyn's great.