Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
If you want to show that you support the welfare cuts because you think it will make you electable, then vote for them, don't fucking abstain like a bunch of spineless cunts.
So fucking fairweather, offer an alternative!
genuinely didn't think Labour were still capable of disappointing me.
(I am a bit angry)
being spun by Adorable Indie MP Steall Creasy et al actually in any way credible?
a fucking idiot
if you vote against the bill at second reading, doesn't that make it easier to make a case for changes at the next stage?
DUNNO, is the answer
but basically they've waived through something horrible in the hope of making it mildly less horrible
Labour prove me wrong!
who come up with a clearly-worked amendment to the bill? I mean, some of the changes are just horrendous. £73 a week for someone who has long-term ill-health and might be able to manage some volunteering but couldn't hold down a full-time job; no tax credits for the third and subsquent children*; no automatic HB for 18-21 year olds. Horrendous.
*personally I'd be in favour of a tax credits system similar to the child benefit one, where you get an amount for the first child and then reduced amounts for subsequent children. Although actually I'd be in favour of scrapping child benefit altogether to boost the pot available for lower income families.
universal benefits like child benefit are good - there should be more of them - it's the same logic that says 18-21 year olds don't NEED housing benefit that says wealthy families don't need child benefit. Once you identify a group as needy they become victimised while simultaneously you hand power to a disconnected group (the Govt.) to decide what individuals & groups of people do and do not NEED
child benefit is not universal anymore - but it should have stayed that way. As soon as you make people apply for something rather than getting it automatically a large number of people for whom that thing is vital just wont apply - whether through stigmatisation or the fog/fear of beaurocracy and opacity of information
An 18 year old on low income who lives in rented accommodation has a NEED for housing benefit, else they will not be able to afford their rent. A family earning, say, £60,000pa (£40K for first earner, £20K for second) has no need for child benefit.
It seems inconsistent to have universal benefits. Same as the automatic free TV licence for over-75s.
I take your argument about the lack of take-up of benefits but that's something that would need addressing in other ways (i.e. clearer information and advice, all frontline workers including GPs, support workers, community centre workers having a good working knowledge of the benefits system). Of course, you're fighting against a tide of anti-benefits rhetoric.
Even a family earning £60k a year might find themselves in 'need' of child benefit, since most people's mortgage / outgoings are predicated on a certain salary.
As an example, as the higher earner in my partnership, if I went on maternity leave for just six months, our income would drop dramatically but we would still have the same high cost of LME living.
It's not nearly as linear as some people make out. I'm very lucky to have generous maternity leave where I work, but not everyone can say that and SMP is shocking.
and it makes you look really chippy by saying it.
i do wish you'd follow me round calling me chippy a bit less, it's almost as if I'm grating on a nerve or something
you're practically Harry Ramsden's.
keep boiling away on it if it makes you happy =)
Basically what UnicornPorn said.
It's a universal benefit that promotes equality of opportunity. In this case the opportunity for women to have a child and a career.
And there doesn't seem any sense in imposing a benefit cap of £20,000 (or whatever it is) whilst simultaneously allowing a family with a £60K income to have an automatic entitlement to child benefit.
because it really disadvantages families who are heavily reliant on the female's wage but who want to have a baby. It's not very progressive.
I think the UK has come very far in gender equality in the workplace since I started out in business 15 years ago, but it's these insidious little things that mean that there is a real competitive disadvantage for those with wombs and who want to use their wombs. Or adopt of course. The barriers to entry in the workplace are being tackled pretty hard, but the barriers to re-entry after mat leave (lack of flexible working, meaning accomplished women are being forced into part time roles or having to make unrewarding career decisions.) that's assuming they haven't already bankrupted their family trying to survive on SMP.
Agree generally with your point on the automatic entitlement, but I can see how having a second child can be a huge financial burden on people who on paper look rich.
Do you think there'd maybe be an argument for introducing a "living maternity" with agreement from industry? I don't know. SMP is ridiculously low.
Because it was introduced originally to go to the mother irregardless of the father's pay packet.
It is telling how much the workplace is subtly skewed against women as breadwinners or even equal partners though. Things like: pretty sure my husband's work wouldn't let him job share so he could go part-time, even though a lot of the women at his firm do this.
Can't really see the flaw in those on >£40k getting less help from the State no matter where they live (but yes child benefit should be available to all who need it).
"surely there must be someone in the Labour party with a head for maths who [could] come up with a clearly-worked amendment to the bill?"
Or indeed, an alternative strategy. I'd genuinely love to see one.
I can't see that happening. (Not that I disagree with you necessarily). But there must be a fairer way of distributing welfare spending than the one proposed by the current government.
if you're lowering the welfare cap then it's only fair to cut benefits to the better off, but you're basically compromising yourself into a position you don't agree with in the first place. Welfare spending was already slashed by the coalition, it can't take any more.
Some of the new changes are just brutal. £73 per week for somebody who's unlikely to manage more than a bit of volunteering just isn't enough in the long term.
but it's mainly spite filled stuff about baby boomers
My gut feeling is that child benefit remains as a vote-winner for middle-income families.
Anyway - flippant response aside, I can't see welfare spending increasing any time soon. And even if an anti-austerity (or whatever you want to call it) Labour government took charge in 2020, we've still got four years worth of cuts to contend with.
I've looked at the figures (as they directly affect the families and single people I work with) both for the current changes and for the future introduction of Universal Credit, and I can't help but think there would be a fairer way of distributing the welfare pot than the one currently proposed.
In the same way that council housing has been insidiously been repositioned over the years from an ideal of 'good quality homes for everyone' to 'temporary housing for those who cannot be housed any other way' and now people feel those who are housed by the council are somehow scroungers or must prove they 'need' it.
If you position welfare as only for a small part of the population, based on proving need, it has a side-effect of making people feel like they shouldn't have to pay for something they don't use and making moral judgements about the choices of those do use it. The original narrative around looking after everyone from the cradle to the grave is so much more inclusive and effective - see the NHS and the BBC, which 'everyone' uses, being highly valued despite concerted attempts to attack it.
I don't think that Child Benefit acts as an incentive for equal opportunity of employment. Maybe a few decades ago, but now it's an anachronism only left in place as it appeals to typical Conservative voter demographic.
I agree that there is significant disincentive for people to claim benefits and that the culture of Shane around benefits needs to be addressed, but I think that they should be means-tested. Albeit with better administration, faster response times for claims, better advice for the public and so on.
Like the last time I weighed in to one of these debates, I feel like I've argued myself into a position if being pro-austerity, which I'm not. I guess I'm just thinking pragmatically as to the fairest way of distributing a pot of money.
Shame! Not Shane
what's going on?
This Govt. is the weakest for a generation in terms of Parliamentary majority, Labour ought to be opposing every bill irrespective of content if they even have the most basic grasp of opposition Politics or y'know - representing the constituents who elected their MPs
It's bloody ridiculous that IDS & Co can mug the poorest & most vulnerable of the UK citizenry out of £12bn and it's (the) Labour ('leadership') who come out of it looking like the worst shower of scabby scrotae with a massive side-helping of infighting/party-division/chaos
Means undeniable 5 year dictatorship because anything else is a spit in the face to every hardworking family in history.
Are you drunk, bro?!
It's a ridiculous #bainprinciple statement.
It's a tactic to break down the govt. by showing how slim their majority is. The need to put pressure on the batsman to force him to make errors.
Each one of their MPs has (or had) the support of constituents who need to be represented
This idea that government & politics is just a one-every-five-years winner-takes-all popularity contest is so fucking bogus - politicians need to work every single day to represent their constituencies & constituents not be a bunch of slaves to the leadership's market research numbers on 'electability' ...the irony being that a strong & principled opposition is much more electable than an opaque & watery dribble version of the party in power
but 'strong and principled opposition' =/= 'opposing every bill irrespective of content'
But I'm entirely convinced that bowling bodyline would be an infinitely more fruitful strategy than setting your field up to limit the run rate - especially when you can't make half your fielders stay in position
voting down things in their manifesto pledges and trying to ruin the country. And it would be an accurate portrayal.
but I think it's a case of picking your moment - ie finding an issue that unites Labour and the rest of the opposition. Why this bill wasn't seen as that moment is beyond me. Labour party looking massively broken at the moment. Like late era Freddie Flintoff?
Bodyline was basically cheating cos they couldn't find any other way of nullifying the greatest player of all time and led to a change in the rules and the team responsible were vilified for decades
there is no point in challenging them as it will just further entrench their beliefs
like the one the rich kid at the houseparty who gets kicks from goading easily-wound-up kids to knock him out but they never do because his dad could pay to have someone do them in proper and all of their families
Genuinely turns me slightly cold every time I see him speak.
In fairness both my London and hometime MPs are on that list. Labour still suck.
I'm especially pleased that he is so easy to find at the bottom of an alphabetized list.
He was going to change his name by deed poll to Aaron Aardvark but it was already taken.
I don't have a Labour MP
yes he did. Top lad
when you have a party who aren't sure what they stand for anymore.
they're certainly doing a lot of boost his chances of winning the leadership. Maybe it's all an incredible double bluff. Then again maybe they're just a bunch of useless cunts.
these kind of policies. Tax credits, minimum wage etc etc were all introduced when he was PM.
Shows just how far the debate has been skewed and driven by the media in the past few years that tacitly endorsing pushing millions of people into poverty is seen as Blairite.
The political games might be Blairite, but the policy certainly isn't.
and they're constantly ignoring you to 'listen' to people who didn't vote for them and then every so often David Blunkett looms out of the darkness to tell you you're awful
I refuse to believe he has a shred of decency in him though
I don't know if I'm deluded but I know several people from northern towns fucked over by Thatcher who voted Tory. People's memories really aren't that long, and a lot of the hatred towards "socialism" isn't really something the majority of people under about 40 even care about. Is the whole "Corbyn Unelectable" thing a load of shite?
They didn't grow up in a time of mass strikes and have never had anyone but a robot to vote for on either side, the sheer fact Corbyn sounds like a human will gain him a lot of credibility. Worked alright for Farage with his whole anti-establishment schtick... I don't think there's a bunch of secret voters going to come out and win it for him but if he were to be smart enough to campaign on a voting, house of lords and e.u. reform bid it's not totally unachievable. Yes the media would slay him, but I think the media bashing of Miliband played a lot less of a part in his failure than the fact he didn't even vaguely try to argue against the Tory "you lot caused all this" narrative.
The argument that we rarely, if ever vote for a left wing prime minister could be proven about as relevant as saying America had never voted for a black President.
Trying to be optimistic swimming through a sea of shite.
The entire discourse has linked authoritarian modern Conservativism with consumerism. Even if people don't like the Tories they like consumerism.
Fuck "the media". "The media" in Scotland is stacked massively against the SNP. And has rendered itself an irrelevant laughing stock for, the most part, in terms of newspapers. Trust in the BBC is notably lower in Scotland than the rUK, too.
"I don't think there's a bunch of secret voters going to come out and win it for him"
I do. For the reasons stated in the recent Corbyn and Umunna threads.
If Labour are gonna haul themselves out of the grave they're gonna need to develop a COHERENT and CONSISTENT set of policies that are CLEARLY non-Tory and that don't rely on "the media" reprinting your press releases verbatim and acting as your cheerleader.
Thought Salmond had made friends with Murdoch? Wasn't the Sun in Scotland's coverage pretty pro-SNP?
"This article was amended on 25 April 2012. The original stated Alex Salmond had held more than two dozen meetings with Rupert Murdoch. This has been changed to make clear that the meetings were with Murdoch or his executives."
So the there were still two dozen meetings with Murdoch and/or his executives? Not gonna lie, it still sounds pretty bad for your 'SNP aren't in bed with the Scottish media' angle.
you need your head checking. Seriously. What planet does that assertion come from?
Guardian article downgrades 'with Murdoch' to 'Murdoch or one of his Executives'. Executives is a classic weasel word. Could mean anyone. That aside, the actual printed Murdoch-love for Salmond was pretty thin on the ground.
Some other thoughts on related questions posed: http://is.gd/adoxoj
"Hello, Carphone Warehouse."
"Hi, I'm thinking about upgrading my phone."
"Certainly madam, let me hand you over to one of our sales executives..."
C'mon dude, you're smarter than that.
but this doesn't seem very 'lukewarm' to me.
I don't live in Scotland though, you might be right.
The left hand rUK 50% of that image is pro-Tory. And within that, an anti-SNP message. And that comparison image will have likely reached more people via facebook, twitter and blog posts than the printed front page did. We're not daft - that was one day. When the work was already done. During which time, the Sun was skulking and biding it's time to make sure it backed a winner.
Lukewarm towards the SNP, at the very most. Approximately zero credit for any SNP success is due to them. Just as, despite the Daily Record being an unashamed and unequivocal Labour cheerleader, they're facing wipeout.
The Scotsman being in the same category as the Mail and the Express affords it joke status, and an ever more precarious financial position.
Any pro-SNP from the Sunday Herald or The National is life-changing to the converted and means nowt. The Graun is editorially Unionist, but sales up here are a side issue.
None of the papers really matter in 2015 innit.
I suspect any supposed Salmond-Murdoch 'friendliness' was in the knowledge that the Sun would never really be onside, but cordial relations might help keep things usefully neutral (or something approaching that point). i.e. no pro-referendum stance, but not a total (repeat of the noose front page) monstering, and no Record-style Lab-love.
The Beeb could defo be accused of mollycoddling Labour. I personally wouldn't go as far as many would on that claim, but there's absolutely no doubt that they skew a certain way. And, as a result, it has had a hit in trust up here.
Described Corbyn as 'left-winger Jeremy Corbyn' this morning. Seemed a bit off. You never hear them describe 'right-winger George Osborne/Farage/Cameron' etc. etc.
in that it will support whoever it needs to in order to sell the most amount of papers ni any particular geographic location.
While the normal SUn decided to scaremonger about UKIP and SNP threats, the Scottish Sun foresaw that SNP were going to do well and decided to jump aboard. I've never seen just shameless dry humping of a political leader, as I saw during May with all that Nicola dressed up as Princess Lea/ 'Stur Wars' etc. Shameless! It was EMBARRASSING how much Andrew Nicholl practically salivated at the chance to talk up Nicola- he was like an awkward teenager having his first wank over Steffi graf.
I don't think the BBC have always been even handed on their approach to the SNP but the herald is decent enough, and STV. And of course, the Scottish sun is... well, in the last six months, it speaks for itself.
I say this as someone who voted snp- you honestly can't say they get a hard press up here. Two years ago maybe, but not in the last six months at least. I think one of us is blinkered here, happy to admit it might be me!
Impressed you've managed to turn this one into a reasonably lengthy discussion of how hard done by the SNP are... I thought you'd have gone with the easier option of Labour UK just following the Scottish Branch office's example in imploding.
CARRY ON YOUR NON-MONITORED CONVERSATIONS AS NORMAL.
No-one likes us
We don't care
who didn't oppose the bill. There aren't enough white feathers in the world.
what a fucking wank
if he votes against Harman, then he's just encouraging the left-wingers to rebel against him as leader if he tries to make "difficult choices". If he doesn't, then he's subject to all the criticism that's been pointed Labour's way over the last day or two.
With that said, he's been taking the piss a bit by trying to "show leadership" himself over this and claiming principles while at the same time saying that collective responsibility still overrides all.
made himself look a dithering bellend to Labour members and hopefully fucked his chances.
he's trying to have it both ways. Pick a side and defend it (or abstain and defend it), but stop this opinionless beliefless valueless personalityless bullshit.
Also: "it is quite clear that this is a party now that is crying out for leadership and that is what I have shown in recent days." Er, I don't think you get to say that kind of thing about yourself, AB. Not without looking a prize melon.
I'm in Unite, so it's free - but not all union members get an automatic vote anymore, so I'd have to register or something. Can't quite remember what. Don't really know if I care. Whole thing is fucked. Lower the fucking flag and let's all move to Belgium.
You've made the point I was trying to make far better though.
anyway, i'm enjoying all of the attention and the spins on this 'left-wing rebellion', and the constant debate as to who is or isn't a secret tory
remind me a bit of the Lib Dems circa August 2010; enthusiastically waving the flag for "tough choices" and "difficult decisions" because they think they'll be rewarded for being mature 5 years down the line.
John McTernan summed this all up very well in the Telegraph yesterday
Whichever way you slice it - the whole thing's a big ol' mess
None. Yeah, totally nailed the issues facing Labour.
the Tories would still have won a majority.
But sure - where to pitch the party to consolidate votes in England AND Scotland given the centre of Scottish politics has shifted... big ask.
You're right though, losing a shitload of seats in a particular region doesn't warrant a mention at all clearly.
considering McTernan himself was the mastermind behind the whole implosion. (After managing to leech ~20% in the referendum, to take a safe position down to the wire. After fucking up for Gillard in Aus. And all the other calamities on his CV.) He wrote a few speeches fur Blair. Big wow. Everything he's touched since then has turned to shit. Man's a fud. Embarrassing for Geoff that he'd cite him in any capacity. The fact that it's him writing for the Telegraph (fresh from speaking at the Tory conference) is the icing on the cake.
McTernan couldn't give two fucks about Labour or it's future. He's a hack who opportunistically weeviled himself into their ranks in their ascendancy and has managed precisely nothing of merit.
Did you see him in Newsnight last night, calling the party morons, etc, for allowing Corbs to be a candidate? Such a ridiculous person.
but he's got a point. Read a couple of bits now suggesting that even Labour MPs who `lent` him their nominations have been deeply regretting it.
Merge the fire and police! There are no fires any more!
You deserve everything you get if you take anything he has to say seriously.
elect Jeremy Corbyn as leader of the Labour Party, and let's see what happens. Only one way to settle it.
Do not even supporters of Corbyn ACTUALLY want to see him as leader of the party? Meta.
what a time to be alive
Inevitable consequence hilarity all round.
isn't attacking the man, you giant baby.
You're starting to look a tad irked son.
Bravo if so.
DiS imitating life. Poor quality bants befitting poor quality opposition.
He called the MPs that proposed Corbyn morons.
why did labour abstain? surely cuts to ESA, removing U-21 HB are things they should be opposing, they are utterly brutal. They're policies that appeal to an English society losing its social conscience, regardless of them being popular vote winners, labour should be opposing them
is that Labour have to be seen as economically credible and the only way they can do that is to allow the Conservatives to enact their cuts.
of 'not just being an opposition', because oppositions do frivolous things like vote against things while govt gets to make all the serious 'difficult decisions'. A 'difficult decision' is one that only special pragmatic grown-ups can make and it's better than any illegal drug for politicians.
I think they hope if they just act like they're already in govt, we'll all kind of forget that they're not and then we'll vote for them next time as the incumbents.
actual amendments to the budget were tabled mind. Didn't bother looking.
Labour is all over the place at the moment, but at least Harman hasn't tied them into any policy positions that the new leader would inherit against their will, I suppose...
What a platform!
Full of sound and fury signifying sweet, sweet fuck all.
I'm 100% committed to the democratic process.
so far it looks like Geoff's just squeaked ahead of Corbyn
who's actually front-running then?
At least me and JC have the shared desire of not actually wanting the job.
So as if on cue
The iceman cometh
- T. Reaper Blair
so maybe he's saying we should vote for him?
And what if the Tories say they'd love him as leader because...they're secretly afraid of him?
CORBYN AS SAVIOUR OF THE LABOUR PARTY CONFIRMED
factored in the shy Tories?
the nicest party gets to run the country
And the "centre" folks down the bottom. Maybe Blair has misunderstood the grassroots of his party all along. MAYBE THIS IS ALL HIS MESS.
It's `grassroots activists` or the electorate?
But obviously the ones who're funding the party and voting to be represented by them in parliament should get precedence?
Because it seems the majority of the Labour party is still left wing
The commentariat still don't really seem to be taking a Corbyn victory seriously, but surely that will change. I'm intrigued about what the fallout from that would be. Would Liz Kendall for instance just sit on her hands and keep her mouth shut for five years? I honestly don't know.
It's puzzling though. You'd think all those political commentators would be frothing at the mouth at the possibilities: coups, party splits, resignations, and yet we don't hear much. Yet.
when the voting gets down to the PLP/MP's stage, Corbyn will be absolutely steamrollered so there's not much chance of it actually happening.
Worth following George Eaton at the New Statesman - seems the best connected commentator on what the fuck's going on in the Labour party atm.
i'd imagine there'd be a bit of 'Cleggmania' at the beginning. He'd get exposure to a huge swathe of voters who have never heard of him before, and he's got a pretty clear ideological framework along with a number of pre-set policy positions within that (anti-Trident etc).
People would respond favourably to the clarity - the old Thatcher thing of 'you might not like her policies but at least you know what she stands for'. I don't see it lasting through to 2020, but initially it would probably go down quite well.
The first thing that would happen would be that the parliamentary party would go into meltdown. There's no way anybody would be talking about Corbyn's ideas for policy.
It'll be made up of all the best loonies. Hilarious to watch from the outside, but there's no way it would/could unite the party.
I know he wears one of those socialist hats with the peak. Is it mainly that?
But the overall perception of Jeremy Corbyn would probably be like when Homer Simpson became sanitation commissioner. We'd hear that delightful `magic money tree` phrase a lot more often etc.
Universal university education funded by a 7% increase in National Insurance for the top-band tax payers.
Just sit back and watch the votes cascade in.
which is a good(ish) idea tbh
it was like a big floating head that was in charge of the money or something. Libor.
(remember Zanu PF?)
LIE-bor, I'd say
Damn, it's not the good Ann Perkins
because the way the Tories got out of the problem of the party choosing leaders that represented it was to have a palace coup and change the election process, but Labour have already changed their's to stop left-wingers getting in and they might get saddled with one anyway! Ha ha ha!
when she tells you what you want to hear then?
"Nationalism is not a new phenomenon. When they talk about it being new politics, it is the oldest politics in the world. It’s the politics of the first caveman council, when the caveman came out from a council where there were difficult decisions and pointed with his club across the forest and said, ‘They’re the problem, over there, that’s the problem’. It’s blaming someone else."
I like that 'difficult decisions' were also a big part of caveman politics
Tristram Hunt claiming that Labour wouldn't be able to deliver opposition to things like the assaults on tax credits and maintenance grants if Corbyn was leader, despite the fact he is the only potential leader who actually opposed them...
This stuff is absolute gold.
"I think the danger is that the Labour party, one of the great governing parties of the 20th and early 21st century, that did enormously important things for Britain and Britain in the world, would be on a trajectory to becoming a pressure group, would not have that broad reach into all parts of the United Kingdom ...
There are many people in the Labour party who can cope with the effects of another Tory government but there are many people in our communities who will be hit really hard by the assault on working tax credits, by taking away maintenance grants for poorer students to go to university and we can’t overindulge ourselves.
Our job is to represent those people, to look like a viable opposition and a prospective government and I don’t think Jeremy Corbyn’s politics or economics will be able to deliver that for us."
WHAT THE HELL IS HE ON ABOUT
about to take out his yacht for a weekend on the Solent
Sincerely hope Corbyn wins now. If you're gonna lose, may as well lose in the most fun way.
Who here is actually a Labour Member? Decided who you're voting for?
Will be fun.
I'm still conflicted. Burnham is a bit too Johnny Generic, I flat out disagree with Kendall (though I did admire her sticking to her guns at the hustings I went to while Burnham and Cooper were doing their best to say exactly what everyone wanted to hear) and Cooper is...weirdly silent at the minute. Has anyone checked on her?
I like Corbyn but I won't be voting for him. Not because he's an electoral liability (though he is that) but because I don't believe he actually wants to be leader.
So yeah. Inspiring choices.
and it turns out she died 2 months ago ;_;
I'm obviously not Labour but my two cents:
I really dislike Burnham, in a way that I didn't dislike Ed. There's just something I find inherently untrustworthy about him. I also hugely, hugely dislike his duplicious bullshit about not being part of the westminster bubble.
Cooper is a bit dead behind the eyes. I think If I was Labour I'd vote for her, but I wouldn't really be able to explain why. She'd be a cracking Cabinet Minister, but nothing about her inspires.
Kendall says a lot of things I like, but is basically not experienced enough and not enough people who know her like her.
They should have sorted it out and convinced Alan Johnson to stand...
Would have been such a great shout. Also even tory dads like Alan Johnson because he wrote that autobiography about being a postman.
Undecided but probably Cooper somewhat unenthusiastically. Just seems the most `up to the task` but that's based on gut feeling more than anything. Too soon for Kendall I think. Can't get behind Burnham AT ALL.
Might be worth getting Corbyn in though just so some people might learn a lesson from it and for the excuses banter Owen Jones and the like would come up with for his pasting in 2020.
Imagine calling yourself a Labour party supporter and wanting Owen Jones to be humiliated...
He's smug and is utterly, utterly wrong.
Imagine calling yourself a Labour party supporter and steering your party in a direction that makes it more likely the Tories will win the next election etc. etc.
And besides - I don't want Owen Jones to be humiliated. In my imaginary scenario he'd have a choice as to whether or not he went `Ok lads, games up, the electorate doesn't return socialist governments` or `The establishment made him unelectable!!!` or whatever. His (imaginary) choice.
Given the platform the Tories stood on, the numbers of people who voted for that platform and the policies that are now being put in place, I really don't think that you're going to see many swing voters from the Tories to Labour in marginal seats if Kendall is leader, or if Cooper pursues her anti-welfare, anti-immigrant line in an effort to court them.
As we've discussed before, Labour didn't lose many votes to the Tories at the last election, and I don't think that there are too many votes to win back Whether there are enough young voters and Greens/SNP/ex-LDs to outweigh that group I don't know, but I do think that tacking further to the right, without setting it in the context of a wider progressive argument will definitely see Labour lose the next election and will see the Greens/SNP and youth vote permanently leave them.
Also, even if Corbyn did genuinely want the job, he'd hardly be socialist. He's much closer to a Social Democrat these days, and it's a sad state of affairs when that is able to be portrayed as extremist.
from 2005 to the Tories though? The fact they seemed to lose even more in 2015 tells its own story...
But I agree with the rest of your 2nd paragraph, tacking further to the right for tacking to the right's sake is just as bad a strategy. And it isn't `Blairite` either.
The big losses came to the parties opposed to the Iraq war two years previously - by which point Blair had become so toxic that he was kept off Labour's election material.
(but I think I got away with it lol)
to win elections stuff isn't for shabs.
to stop everything getting worse and worse forever
so literally nothing to lose by voting for him
But my current thinking is Corbyn - no, Kendall - no. Both because I'm confident they would be shit leaders of the Labour Party. On the other two I think I will toss a coin. That way I avoid the guilt I felt at voting for Ed last time around and can convince myself that it wasn't my fault.
questioned on whether they think Tony Blair would be pro-austerity; pro-targetting the poor, the sick and the disabled; anti-welfare and anti-immigrant in the same way that Kendall and to a lesser extent Cooper have been.
I suspect that Blair has more in common with Corbyn on these issues than he does with the position that Kendall is taking.
is to get outside of it and PULL"
New Labour's 1997 pitch would sit outside of the Overton Window these days. Kendall is proposing to sit firmly within it.
Or at least it was positioned to.
Kendall's oppositions on IHT band changes and Tory anti-union legislation aren't exactly in there either.
You're gonna be honking on about that window for ages now huh?
living under a Tory government and thinking each other is the most patronising cunt on DiS.
First time I've seen you call anyone a cunt on here - very proud of that.
If David Miliband was an MP, would he be standing? And would he win?
(2 questions, technically)
I'm not sure he'd want that.
then a bit before the election get someone else in so they can get the new manager bounce
and would be great at fiddling his expenses
Have they got some sort of union-based warchest? Which foreigners might be electable, Arnie?
Let Jarvis swoop in all war hero optimism to victory in the last year.
It is the shit hot subject of our generation.
he's gone entertainingly weird:
“We lost in 2010 because we stepped somewhat from that modernising platform. We lost in 2015 with an election out of the playback from the 1980s, from the period of Star Trek, when we stepped even further away from it and lost even worse. I don’t understand the logic of stepping entirely away from it.”
from the period of Star Trek?
"I am a socialist not through reading a textbook that has caught my intellectual fancy, nor through unthinking tradition, but because I believe that, at its best, socialism corresponds most closely to an existence that is both rational and moral. It stands for cooperation, not confrontation; for fellowship, not fear. It stands for equality."
Socialism is not a new phenomenon. When they talk about it being new politics, it is the second-oldest politics in the world. It’s the politics of the second caveman council, when the caveman came out from a council where there were difficult decisions and pointed with his club across the forest and said, ‘I believe that, at its best, socialism corresponds most closely to an existence that is both rational and moral. It stands for cooperation, not confrontation; for fellowship, not fear. It stands for equality’.
but this is a top, top zing:
1. Universal free university education
2. Quantitatative Easing to fund infrastructure projects
3. Kill all the men
that second one might be a tough sell
"has dragged the leadership campaign to the left. Unfortunately, the electorate has moved to the centre right."
The electorate moves left and right like a herd of buffalo, and the Labour Party can only follow it where it goes. Why is the electorate more right wing now? Dunno!
about listening to the electorate if corbyn somehow wins.
if the other three werent completely lifeless and were actually offering something other than the same unprincipled and baseless electability politics then corbyn's campaign would likely have never got off the ground. i'd be amazed, impressed, and very happy if he can withstand the inevitable attacks from the media and the party and win this whole thing.
Corbyn's gaining so much traction because none of the other leadership hopefuls are able to articulate a coherent and desirable position/vision. Kendall's having a fair go but she keeps on being called a Tory for it... Burnham's flopping all over the place, Cooper's not saying much... It's all a shambles.
But let's say Corbyn wins the Labour leadership election - I don't think he will because I doubt many of his young, new supporters will actually bother voting - but let's imagine he does for a moment. Wouldn't this be a huge boon for the Lib Dems, effectively being given an open goal to claim the centre ground? Farron seems like a personable, rooted kind of guy - and I don't think the British public would decry him for any personal religious views that he has as long as he doesn't impose them as policy (which he wouldn't be able to do anyway given Lib Dem policy making procedures). If they could properly divorce themselves from the Clegg years (which I think in a way is easier for them given their electoral annihilation) then they might start to pick up some significant support again.
Where's Raanraals and the other few Tories? Did Fidel have them purged?
It is quite funny though. Watching this bunch try and find the answers is like watching a load of partially sighted people try and play a game of hide and seek.
Their rise up to 2010 was based upon voters thinking that they were to the left of the parliamentary Labour party (and on most issues, they were), and from Labour supporters voting tactically in Tory/LibDems seats. None of those will return if Labour shift slightly to the left of their current centre-right position.
and the bit where the other candidates say 'in or out? Yes or no?' to him - as if they didn't like him giving a nuanced answer
where Corbyn suggested that Labour push for something relating to workers' rights in Europe and Liz Kendall was like "but we're not in govt, Jeremy" was pretty illuminating
and abolishes the party as his first move.
fucking hell fucking hell fucking hell fucking hell. absolute shower:
do you remember the episode where Captain Kirk won a UK General Election? No? EXACTLY.
Classic Star Trek
futuristic, peace-loving, poverty-free world full of men in tight uniforms and ladies in short skirts.
and go full Star Trek politics.
80s Labour socialism is now Star Trek: The Original Series.
Major style back to basics Conservative values are The Next Generation
1997 Centre ground Blairism is Deep Space Nine.
"Corbyn said he could cope without Umunna in his shadow cabinet." *end paragraph*
Thought that was what we all wanted.
the politics we deserve, I suppose.
If you can't make a Shadow cabinet without those three then Labour are in more trouble than I thought.
and get them into the politics threads on here. Maybe after feeling the full scale heat of Hatfood they'll realise that everything they knew about politics was wrong and that they should just listen to him instead. idk. I'm all out of explanations.
with acting like a bunch of babies. Easily done.
by the majority of their own party, they wouldn't support him. Honestly never seen anything so childish in party politics. They're essentially having a rebellion against him before he's even leader.
has rebelled against Labour (his own party) in more Commons votes than any other MP in the last 10 years. If you want to point to someone rebelling against the will of elected party leaderships, balance it out with that.
`Never seen anything so childish`. Really?
on an issue by issue basis and rejecting the whole platform. Particularly in this instance where Corbyn has said he'd have an elected cabinet - the idea being that the balance of the cabinet better reflects the balance of the party.
It would be pretty childish for Cooper and Kendall to abandon their supporters, especially if Corbyn is openly saying that Labour and its cabinet need to represent the broad church of its membership.
not least because he knows that a balanced cabinet (even if he wins the leadership there will be sizeable parts of the party who didn't vote for him) is much more electable.
I'd want the same offer to be extended to Corbyn in the event that Cooper or Kendall or Burnham won.
There's a big difference between Corbyn rebelling as a back-bencher of a party that forms a government with a big majority on an issue by issue basis and two big-hitters pledging to do so permanently because a majority of the party membership disagree with them.
Most of the coverage is about disgraced New Labour politicians rearing up from beyond the grave and condemning centre-left politics rather than any examination of the candidates' policies.
with rejecting a whole `platform` with your conscience? Let's cut to the chase here - if JC said `I'm not being in any cabinet of Liz Kendall's because she's a hideous Tory` you'd be absolutely loving it. You're conflating the `principled` and `conscientious` with `stuff that I agree with`.
That whole elected cabinet members thing sounds absurdly bureaucratic to me. Not also sure if it's the bext way to ensure the levels of competence needed at Shadow Ministerial level either.
against the will of the membership who decided to get rid of them only 4 years ago?!
eminently sensible for a leader who might be coming in amid controversy and deep splits over his leadership.
Not that I know much about them though. What was the rationale behind getting rid of them in 2011?
a bit of discussion about this going on above..
Corbyn and Cooper/Kendall are at completely different stages in their career and have come from completely different backgrounds in the party. One's always been a backbencher and the other two have been in cabinet and shadow cabinet roles recently.
I don't don't think Corbyn actually wanted to be leader and could see him turning down a shadow cabinet role for any number of justifiable reasons (eg he's too old, etc), but none of them would be out of spite after a position is offered to them. If Kendall or Cooper win they'd be playing a very dangerous game if they didn't offer places to MPs representing the 40ish% of members who may vote for Corbyn.
fwiw I think Corbyn, or at least one of his high profile supporters, should be offered a shadow cabinet gig so we're agreed there.
Not sure how `career stages` have anything to do with it.
that claim was directed at you - it wasn't)
I'd think Corbyn was being a baby if he refused a Shadow Cabinet role in advance if someone else won. The Labour Party is going to need to do a lot of work on uniting itself after this election, whoever wins, and part of that is down to the combative, babyish behaviour of some of the Blairite candidates. Corbyn's been pretty dignified so far tbh.
ex-cabinet/shadow cabinet members with many more years of service to give and who are able to be portrayed as the future of the party deciding to not serve in a shadow cabinet is much more destructive to the party than a 66 year old lifelong backbencher doing so would be.
it's about to go down, ladies and gentlemen
over the next couple of weeks if corny continues to gain support (autocorrect just changed corbyn to corny and I'm leaving it like that) where the labour right will suddenly become the outsiders/barn-burners who are destroying the party for the sake of their principles.
of tipping all assumed wisdom about politics and how political parties should seek to galvanise support in a way that helps them to win elections on its arse. Which would be a very interesting spectacle. Part of me does with for Corbyn to be elected (not that he will) just to see what happens. Last time a similar thing happened (Michael Foot) it resulted in their worst ever election performance but... maybe things have changed. Who the fuck knows anymore.
Despite how many are trying to whip it up, this is nothing like when Foot became leader.
Is your point that the electorate is now ready for a leader substantially on the left of the Labour party?
who doesn't seem to stand for anything at all (which Burnham and co are doing a good impression of at the moment)
more likely to pick up additional votes to the left of the party with his pitch, than Kendall and Cooper will with voters to the right With theirs.
I genuinely don't see either of them picking up many of the diminishing Lab/Tory swing voters with what they are currently saying.
With their current pitches and the electorate (both voting and non-voting) as it is now.
As things currently stand - none of them appear to have a winning pitch for a General Election. Perhaps it's a bit harsh to single out Corbyn for criticism given this apparent fact but... y'know.
if the idea of a genuine alternatives to conservative policies actually bother them that much.
just for this quote, “It was really important that the party came out of the election united." You can almost taste the despair in that.
and everyone else is running around bursting the balloons and rearranging the letters on the cake :(
I think that's the face I pulled at the end of Grave of the Fireflies. Can someone make him a cup of tea or something?
That the right of the party these days are probably too right to be called New Labour.
Abstaining from the budget vote/refusing to reinvest in public services is directly against Blairite policies
And that basically they've been itching for civil war and should leave the Labour party
I would like to see a Labour party leader who doesn't vote for unjust wars and the killing of innocents based on their personal religious conviction despite the almost universal wish of the populace being against such action. And one who doesn't invent false or misleading evidence to do this.
I would like to see a Labour party leader who isn't so paranoid about the reaction of business and the right wing media to their policies that he's an epileptic in a straight jacket.
I would like to see a Labour party leader who doesn't sign the country up to lots of PFI deals that leave a financial time-bomb on governments after they have left Downing Street.
I would like to see a Labour party leader, in fact a Prime Minister, who
doesn't have just a cheesy grin, a hard-on for focus groups and a battalion of spin-doctors.
I would like to see a Labour party leader who has the balls to bring forward radical policies that can address some of the giant problems in our country rather than micro-managing minute details of taxation and government policy and relying on another privatisation to bring more revenue in.
I have a heart and a head. This country has been going down the shitter for 40 years or so, and despite the minimum wage and banning fox-hunting, you predominantly spent a lot of government energy making it worse. Electing a cuddly facsimile of the Conservative party in 1997 did us little good, and now the Conservatives are in the middle of a bloody orgy of political violence, your cuddly brand of right-wing politics is even less the answer.
It’s time to get out of Iraq, Bush.
What were you even doing there in the first place, Bush?
You didn’t even get properly elected, Bush.
Are you happy now, Bush?
Fuck you, Bush.
that Blair is now some wise old grandee of the Labour party. The retired politician Labour members should look up to; whose counsel should be sought in times of trouble.
That election in 1997 would have been won by Kinnock. It was as much a reaction to nearly 20 years of the same party as to the 'genius' of the slick centre-right focus of the modernisers. And look at some of the terrible things they did with that victory. And yet we must never forget the New Labour way is the only way. Because anything else is Michael Foot.
To bring up Foot - either directly by name or through mentioning the "worst times of the 1980's" is to pass manure to the tabloids to lob at a man who could well be the new leader of your party.
Talk about the fucking policies and principles. If Burnham and co can't beat him on the policies then they can be good Labour MPs and support their new leader. Or perhaps they can join the Liberal Democrats or even the Conservatives.
when it was mainly thanks to the scumbag SDP. Splitters!
(that tasted of donkeys)
They love and hate him and can't get away from him. Every once in a while he's wheeled out to spew some merry claptrap. This is what it feels like. Fucking hell.
when there were tories that hated Thatcher? Gutted if so.
When she was an awkward working class woman in the 70s who rejected the received intelligence of the then political elites in favour of her own radical, frightening ideals? When she began to run the party as a dictatorship? When she toxified the party's image and left them in the political wilderness for more than a decade?
Massive love/hate relationship the party itself has with her.
They still loved the tits off her in the second two, and in the first of course they were still just getting to know her warm and cuddly nature.
Genuinely can't remember a single tory politician or for that matter supporter who blamed her for the "political wilderness decade". After all they had William Hague.
being massively boring
and be nicer to business. Inspiring stuff
it's pretty clear that Labour party members have a better grasp on reality than all voters?
the question is which were the most important reasons, not 'how much do you agree or disagree'
Which makes it even more of a spurious survey.
I imagine that those polled would have defaulted to assumptions they have about the Labour Party and clustered around easy criticisms.
Agree - would have been more illuminating if you'd actually asked them to articulate what they thought, but the survey results still fit the election evidence result evidence and post-election focus group quotes right?
A better grasp on `reality` on such subjective matters such as Ed Miliband's leadership, touch with its working class roots, and austerity tackling strategy etc. etc. But still, the left needs to comfort itself with something - the illusion of being `right` is as good a thing as any...
If the electorate were solely made up of Labour Party Members we'd be in paradise. But it's not.
Holy shit that'd be awful.
of their shakey question.
I mean, it's pretty obvious that Labour didn't do enough to defend their record pre-2010, and they actually shouldn't be apologising for effectively saving the world economy.
Politics is a cruel business.
It would be surprising if it showed anything else. Just a bit bored.
Look how your political allegiance has no bearing on your opinion of Liz Kendall
At Burnham's performance amongst Tory supporters there. Better than Cooper. Surprising.
(Thinking this might be a joke but not sure)
Liz Kendall's pulled out of the leadership race to concentrate on her Pretenders tribute act
a Pretenders tribute act???
Can't call yourself 'The Pretenders', can you???
Maybe: 'the real people'?
Makes sense but is also a funny joke.
not for the party, obviously, but still
Not sure if srs though.
Got me thinking - Jeremy Corbyn would be much better as a London Mayor candidate. He'd get my vote.