Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Jack Knave on January 25, 2016, 08:24:41 PM
-
After their so called hard-look-at-themselves to why they flopped in the GE report, and that some Labour MPs are calling it a white wash are they now dead due to their blindness?
If they don't face the facts and reality of the politics concerning the voters then they are left with two options both of which don't look at the real situation for the voter. They either have the old New Labour approach which looks inwardly at the party machine, and is full of spin and lies, or they have the Lefties led by Corbyn, who although raises some issues that the voters feel are affecting them the Left's idea of how to deal with them are set in the past and/or are heavily coloured by their ideology and not reality.
I see a similar problem looming up for the Tories, as their grass roots are far from happy with the pro EU and party machine focus that the people at the top champion.
Any thoughts on the matter people?
-
After their so called hard-look-at-themselves to why they flopped in the GE report, and that some Labour MPs are calling it a white wash are they now dead due to their blindness?
If they don't face the facts and reality of the politics concerning the voters then they are left with two options both of which don't look at the real situation for the voter. They either have the old New Labour approach which looks inwardly at the party machine, and is full of spin and lies, or they have the Lefties led by Corbyn, who although raises some issues that the voters feel are affecting them the Left's idea of how to deal with them are set in the past and/or are heavily coloured by their ideology and not reality.
I see a similar problem looming up for the Tories, as their grass roots are far from happy with the pro EU and party machine focus that the people at the top champion.
Any thoughts on the matter people?
They need a leader who looks like a credible Prime Minister to the electorate. They didn't have one in Miliband, they haven't in Corbyn, but if they kick the latter out and replace him with someone who can communicate with the electorate and looks prime ministerial all is not lost.
Whether it is right or not every election has been won by the party with the most credible leader (and leadership ratings are a sure fire way of predicting outcome of elections), plus also to a certain extent (although this is linked to the former) by the party perceived to be the more centrist of the two main parties at the time of the election.
-
They had no chance of winning in 2020 as the boundaries will change. They could have had any leader. They would lose. There us only one chance for the Tories not to win in 2020 and that is a fight in the Tories over the EU referendum. Given that the Liberals are screwed for the foreseeable future, UKIP can manage to have a split with1 MP, the Liberals are screwed and if they get 15 seat as will be a ecstatic, that's it.
-
I think it's the electoral cycle. Any party that wins 3 terms tends to suffer a severe backlash, not just from the electorate, but internally, that is, they become exhausted and jaded. Thus, after 1997, the Tories had a sort of nervous breakdown, and didn't win again for 18 years. Labour are going through the same thing, and I don't think it would matter whether left or right were in charge. It's partly remedial, since each party is forced to examine itself or fall apart, or both, as it has its breakdown, and in the end, this rejuvenates.
-
The quite utterly terrifying thing is that Labour's weakness means Osborne is likely to be PM.
-
The quite utterly terrifying thing is that Labour's weakness means Osborne is likely to be PM.
Or Boris
-
Or Boris
Perhaps even Theresa.
-
They need a leader who looks like a credible Prime Minister to the electorate. They didn't have one in Miliband, they haven't in Corbyn, but if they kick the latter out and replace him with someone who can communicate with the electorate and looks prime ministerial all is not lost.
Whether it is right or not every election has been won by the party with the most credible leader (and leadership ratings are a sure fire way of predicting outcome of elections), plus also to a certain extent (although this is linked to the former) by the party perceived to be the more centrist of the two main parties at the time of the election.
They allowed the unions to force the wrong Miliband on them, then decided to re-live the 80's - quite unbelievable.
For the Conservatives it is like winning the Lottery
(Future historians will no doubt regard this as Labours Corbyniferous period :D )
-
They allowed the unions to force the wrong Miliband on them, then decided to re-live the 80's - quite unbelievable.
For the Conservatives it is like winning the Lottery
(Future historians will no doubt regard this as Labours Corbyniferous period :D )
Agree I suspect they could have pushed Tories into at least coalition with the other brother. The idealistic left are in control now, it will reduce the party to a protest group.
Although I'm not sure it can be any other way Labour would have to deal with the SNP who are toxic to a great deal of the electorate. If the Tories had planned to have divided and ruled they couldn't have done a better job.
-
The upcoming Holyrood election will be interesting. If Labour do as badly here as it seems they might, such as ending up with only 'List' seats having failed to win any of the FFP ones or, and even worse for them, if they are also overtaken by the Tories here then they may well have lost the chance of ever recovering their historical rump of Scottish Westminster MPs that they'd need to have even an outside chance in 2020.
If Labour really are finished in Scotland then the result of the EU referendum might not matter a great deal to them. If the decision is to stay in then Labour don't seem likely to benefit electorally, since even with tweaks to the EU deal that is the status quo so they are still where they are now, and if the UK decision is to exit but within Scotland we vote to stay then, as Blair said yesterday, the UK may well break up - either way Labour look doomed as a credible government even if that is just within England and Wales. I suppose another factor of a 'stay in' outcome is whether the Tories would fragment, but even then this may not help Labour.
One way or another it seems we are living in 'interesting times'!
-
Agree I suspect they could have pushed Tories into at least coalition with the other brother. The idealistic left are in control now, it will reduce the party to a protest group.
Although I'm not sure it can be any other way Labour would have to deal with the SNP who are toxic to a great deal of the electorate. If the Tories had planned to have divided and ruled they couldn't have done a better job.
It seems to be a ritual cleansing that the party have to go through. Eventually it will occur to someone they are becoming irrelevant to the vast majority of voters.
-
They need a leader who looks like a credible Prime Minister to the electorate. They didn't have one in Miliband, they haven't in Corbyn, but if they kick the latter out and replace him with someone who can communicate with the electorate and looks prime ministerial all is not lost.
Whether it is right or not every election has been won by the party with the most credible leader (and leadership ratings are a sure fire way of predicting outcome of elections), plus also to a certain extent (although this is linked to the former) by the party perceived to be the more centrist of the two main parties at the time of the election.
That was the gist of my OP, that they have a binary choice both of which are not what you rightly say they need. Where will this leader come from?
-
They had no chance of winning in 2020 as the boundaries will change. They could have had any leader. They would lose. There us only one chance for the Tories not to win in 2020 and that is a fight in the Tories over the EU referendum. Given that the Liberals are screwed for the foreseeable future, UKIP can manage to have a split with1 MP, the Liberals are screwed and if they get 15 seat as will be a ecstatic, that's it.
What about external factors that would open the eyes to the majority of the electorate to the sheer incompetence of the whole system and major parties and people truly start to move away from the main two? Desperate times require desperate measures for the voters?
-
That was the gist of my OP, that they have a binary choice both of which are not what you rightly say they need. Where will this leader come from?
Where indeed will that leader come from.
Well history suggests that leaders who have won general elections from opposition aren't obviously apparent prior to their becoming leader of the opposition. So of the most recent examples, being Cameron, Blair and Thatcher - none had a massively high profile before winning leadership of the opposition. So there is probably someone on those opposition back benches (that's where I think they'll be because they will need to be a non-Corbynite). I've always liked Chuka and sad he pulled out last summer, but biding his time might look to be a smart strategy in the long run. Then there is Dan Jarvis, regularly talked about as a potential leader and Lisa Nandy (if you think that a credible leader needs to come from the left of the party - I don't by the way).
-
I think it's the electoral cycle. Any party that wins 3 terms tends to suffer a severe backlash, not just from the electorate, but internally, that is, they become exhausted and jaded. Thus, after 1997, the Tories had a sort of nervous breakdown, and didn't win again for 18 years. Labour are going through the same thing, and I don't think it would matter whether left or right were in charge. It's partly remedial, since each party is forced to examine itself or fall apart, or both, as it has its breakdown, and in the end, this rejuvenates.
I sense though that these are different times in the sense that the Tories could also crack up due to the referendum, the bullying scandal with Clarke (for get his first name) and the top down hierarchy that many grass roots now resent. many could move away from the main parties.
-
I sense though that these are different times in the sense that the Tories could also crack up due to the referendum, the bullying scandal with Clarke (for get his first name) and the top down hierarchy that many grass roots now resent. many could move away from the main parties.
The Tories have benefited massively from a split opposition (just as they did in the mid 80s) - so don't forget they haven't attained more than 37% of the popular vote for nigh on 25 years - so there is no great seismic shift. These are levels that lost parties elections through the 1960s and 70s.
-
The upcoming Holyrood election will be interesting. If Labour do as badly here as it seems they might, such as ending up with only 'List' seats having failed to win any of the FFP ones or, and even worse for them, if they are also overtaken by the Tories here then they may well have lost the chance of ever recovering their historical rump of Scottish Westminster MPs that they'd need to have even an outside chance in 2020.
If Labour really are finished in Scotland then the result of the EU referendum might not matter a great deal to them. If the decision is to stay in then Labour don't seem likely to benefit electorally, since even with tweaks to the EU deal that is the status quo so they are still where they are now, and if the UK decision is to exit but within Scotland we vote to stay then, as Blair said yesterday, the UK may well break up - either way Labour look doomed as a credible government even if that is just within England and Wales. I suppose another factor of a 'stay in' outcome is whether the Tories would fragment, but even then this may not help Labour.
One way or another it seems we are living in 'interesting times'!
Yeap, Scotland is a thorn in the side for Labour.
Actually that's an excellent point. Regardless of what Labour do (say they get a great leader that inspires etc.) I can't see them getting Scotland back. Why bother with a UK centre left party when you have a national one right on your doorstep.
-
It seems to be a ritual cleansing that the party have to go through. Eventually it will occur to someone they are becoming irrelevant to the vast majority of voters.
;D
-
Why bother with a UK centre left party when you have a national one right on your doorstep.
Because you also end up with a right wing party in Westminster which still greatly affects what happens north of the border.
-
Because you also end up with a right wing party in Westminster which still greatly affects what happens north of the border.
And would have been the same if every Scottish seat was Labour at last election. and arguably they were right wing then anyway.
-
And would have been the same if every Scottish seat was Labour at last election. and arguably they were right wing then anyway.
Not necessarily as the threat of the SNP being in coalition certainly tipped a few seats south of the border blue. Don't forget the 'scare' tactics of Miliband being in Salmond's pocket was one of the main campaigning tools for the Tories - or at least it was in England.
-
Where indeed will that leader come from.
Well history suggests that leaders who have won general elections from opposition aren't obviously apparent prior to their becoming leader of the opposition. So of the most recent examples, being Cameron, Blair and Thatcher - none had a massively high profile before winning leadership of the opposition. So there is probably someone on those opposition back benches (that's where I think they'll be because they will need to be a non-Corbynite). I've always liked Chuka and sad he pulled out last summer, but biding his time might look to be a smart strategy in the long run. Then there is Dan Jarvis, regularly talked about as a potential leader and Lisa Nandy (if you think that a credible leader needs to come from the left of the party - I don't by the way).
I think my analysis is that they are stymied by Scotland. Scotland is lost to them and in part because Westminster is such a self-serving inward looking institution because the main parties are.
-
The upcoming Holyrood election will be interesting. If Labour do as badly here as it seems they might, such as ending up with only 'List' seats having failed to win any of the FFP ones or, and even worse for them, if they are also overtaken by the Tories here then they may well have lost the chance of ever recovering their historical rump of Scottish Westminster MPs that they'd need to have even an outside chance in 2020.
If Labour really are finished in Scotland then the result of the EU referendum might not matter a great deal to them. If the decision is to stay in then Labour don't seem likely to benefit electorally, since even with tweaks to the EU deal that is the status quo so they are still where they are now, and if the UK decision is to exit but within Scotland we vote to stay then, as Blair said yesterday, the UK may well break up - either way Labour look doomed as a credible government even if that is just within England and Wales. I suppose another factor of a 'stay in' outcome is whether the Tories would fragment, but even then this may not help Labour.
One way or another it seems we are living in 'interesting times'!
Yes I see the EU referendum as our chance to vote on Scottish independence!
-
Not necessarily as the threat of the SNP being in coalition certainly tipped a few seats south of the border blue. Don't forget the 'scare' tactics of Miliband being in Salmond's pocket was one of the main campaigning tools for the Tories - or at least it was in England.
That doesn't even begin to make sense. If Labour had all the Scottish seats, they would still be in opposition, simple fact. Randomly, making up numbers about what might have happened if things weren't as they were is gibberish. As for the scare tactics, these would be the ones that Labour backed up in their attempt to be right wing.
-
I think my analysis is that they are stymied by Scotland. Scotland is lost to them and in part because Westminster is such a self-serving inward looking institution because the main parties are.
But Scotland was lost to the Tories from 92 onwards, didn't stop them winning in 2015 did it.
Don't forget that Labour didn't need Scotland to win in 97, 2001 or 2005.
-
Because you also end up with a right wing party in Westminster which still greatly affects what happens north of the border.
I'm not sure if the Scots view Labour any better than the Tories these days(?). Better to vote with your heart and fight to be free.
-
But Scotland was lost to the Tories from 92 onwards, didn't stop them winning in 2015 did it.
Don't forget that Labour didn't need Scotland to win in 97, 2001 or 2005.
So for all those, you want to accept the actual numbers but for 2015, you want to claim that somehow it was the the SNP wot lost it for Labour, despite the facts of the numbers. Mmmm
-
But Scotland was lost to the Tories from 92 onwards, didn't stop them winning in 2015 did it.
Don't forget that Labour didn't need Scotland to win in 97, 2001 or 2005.
They won because they were Tories with a different name and The Tories were in a mess. So the choice is Tories or Tories, in some form or other.
-
Where indeed will that leader come from.
Well history suggests that leaders who have won general elections from opposition aren't obviously apparent prior to their becoming leader of the opposition. So of the most recent examples, being Cameron, Blair and Thatcher - none had a massively high profile before winning leadership of the opposition. So there is probably someone on those opposition back benches (that's where I think they'll be because they will need to be a non-Corbynite). I've always liked Chuka and sad he pulled out last summer, but biding his time might look to be a smart strategy in the long run. Then there is Dan Jarvis, regularly talked about as a potential leader and Lisa Nandy (if you think that a credible leader needs to come from the left of the party - I don't by the way).
I've always thought Chuka saw the way the wind was blowing and decided to 'keep his powder dry' for another day after the 'loonie-left' surge burn itself out.
(P.S. I have a tenner on hims as next leader :) )
-
I've always thought Chuka saw the way the wind was blowing and decided to 'keep his powder dry' for another day after the 'loonie-left' surge burn itself out.
(P.S. I have a tenner on hims as next leader :) )
Given when he withdrew, which was before Corbyn had announced, never mind had gained the MP votes and not even close to when there was an apparent surge, I would be very impressed had he predicted that.
-
Given when he withdrew, which was before Corbyn had announced, never mind had gained the MP votes and not even close to when there was an apparent surge, I would be very impressed had he predicted that.
Even before Corbyn entered the arena, it was obvious that the party was looking Left. No moderate politician ever stood a chance.
-
Even before Corbyn entered the arena, it was obvious that the party was looking Left. No moderate politician ever stood a chance.
It really wasn't. Corbyn at that stage had no chance of standing, was around 100/1, and the whole 3 pound thing wasn't factored in. There was no obvious reason in the 'leftiness' of the party at that stage for him to withdraw, all of 3 days after he had declared.
-
It really wasn't. Corbyn at that stage had no chance of standing, was around 100/1, and the whole 3 pound thing wasn't factored in. There was no obvious reason in the 'leftiness' of the party at that stage for him to withdraw, all of 3 days after he had declared.
Well, the Lefties won the day - so whether good luck or good judgement he did well to avoid that shambles and sooner or later pragmatism will cut-in and Labour will decide to choose a credible leader.
-
Well, the Lefties won the day - so whether good luck or good judgement he did well to avoid that shambles and sooner or later pragmatism will cut-in and Labour will decide to choose a credible leader.
Unless the Tories decide on full out internecine strife after the EU Referendum, the next chance for a Labour govt is 2025. I doubt he will still be interested.
-
Unless the Tories decide on full out internecine strife after the EU Referendum, the next chance for a Labour govt is 2025. I doubt he will still be interested.
I think it is possible that Corbynism could implode much sooner allowing time for a new leader to bed-in before 2020.
-
I think it is possible that Corbynism could implode much sooner allowing time for a new leader to bed-in before 2020.
But with the redefinition of the boundaries that leader has no chance of winning unless as already covered the Tories rip themselves apart.
-
But with the redefinition of the boundaries that leader has no chance of winning unless as already covered the Tories rip themselves apart.
I would have thought that there might be a window of opportunity for Labour if the EU referendum went badly* for Cameron, but only if they have got themselves a credible leader.
*Badly' being a very narrow margin resulting in acrimony within the party.
-
I would have thought that there might be a window of opportunity for Labour if the EU referendum went badly* for Cameron, but only if they have got themselves a credible leader.
*Badly' being a very narrow margin resulting in acrimony within the party.
Which is why I have twice mentioned it as a possibility, but it needs that. Even then with the combination of boundary changes, and that a close margin is not without its costs for Labour, it seems unlikley. If they are to have someone in place by the referendum, I cannot see that happening without a form of tearing themselves apart as well.
-
So for all those, you want to accept the actual numbers but for 2015, you want to claim that somehow it was the the SNP wot lost it for Labour, despite the facts of the numbers. Mmmm
I don't remember the possibility of a Scotland only party holding the balance of power being an issue that might have swung voters in 1997 or 2001 or 2005, so it wasn't relevant. It didn't swing any votes, it didn't change the result in any seats.
It was an issue in 2015 and therefore is relevant.
-
After their so called hard-look-at-themselves to why they flopped in the GE report, and that some Labour MPs are calling it a white wash are they now dead due to their blindness?
If they don't face the facts and reality of the politics concerning the voters then they are left with two options both of which don't look at the real situation for the voter. They either have the old New Labour approach which looks inwardly at the party machine, and is full of spin and lies, or they have the Lefties led by Corbyn, who although raises some issues that the voters feel are affecting them the Left's idea of how to deal with them are set in the past and/or are heavily coloured by their ideology and not reality.
I see a similar problem looming up for the Tories, as their grass roots are far from happy with the pro EU and party machine focus that the people at the top champion.
Any thoughts on the matter people?
To stand a chance labour need another leader.
Their present one is a bit too left wing.
I think he is more 70's than 80's
:o
-
To stand a chance labour need another leader.
Their present one is a bit too left wing.
I think he is more 70's than 80's
:o
It isn't just that he is too left wing to appeal to a broad enough proportion of the electorate to win an election. He is also useless as a leader - just look at how many things he has botched during his few months in charge.
-
But the great thing about Jeremy is that he unites Left and Right. The Far Left adore him while the Right think he is the best thing to happen to the Conservative party since Michael Foot :)
-
It isn't just that he is too left wing to appeal to a broad enough proportion of the electorate to win an election. He is also useless as a leader - just look at how many things he has botched during his few months in charge.
I watched PMQs yesterday and he had some great material to take Cameron apart but failed to land any blows. I would think Benn would have at least caused more damage. Its sad the Tories have a tiny majority the opposition should be able to hold them to account much better than they are.
-
I watched PMQs yesterday and he had some great material to take Cameron apart but failed to land any blows. I would think Benn would have at least caused more damage. Its sad the Tories have a tiny majority the opposition should be able to hold them to account much better than they are.
Though Benn would have found it gar harder to make much of Google for example because Cameron's reply would have been much more apposite to him than Corbyn. That we think of doing damage as holding to account is part of the problem.
-
Dear Jakswan,
Thank you, just watched yesterdays PMQ, all I saw from Cameron was more Tory smoke and mirrors, Mr Corbyn made the telling point, what is this Government doing concerning tax, I don't want to know about past Government failures, Mr Cameron also used two words, fair and fairness, I think someone should buy the man a dictionary, he has not got a clue about fairness.
I also noted the style of Cameron and Corbyn, one totally calm, the other raised voice and pandering to the crowd.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Jakswan,
Thank you, just watched yesterdays PMQ, all I saw from Cameron was more Tory smoke and mirrors, Mr Corbyn made the telling point, what is this Government doing concerning tax, I don't want to know about past Government failures, Mr Cameron also used two words, fair and fairness, I think someone should buy the man a dictionary, he has not got a clue about fairness.
I also noted the style of Cameron and Corbyn, one totally calm, the other raised voice and pandering to the crowd.
Gonnagle.
Gonners, you say that you "don't want to know about past Government failures", but how long has the particular tax legislation that governs this particular area of the corporate world been in existence? I believe that we are reaping the whirlwind from bad decisions by past Governments - possibly going back as far as Wilson and Thatcher.
Regarding the two styles, I've seen Corbyn with raised voice and pandering to the Labour benches and Cameron all silky smooth and calm in the past. It all has to do with their particular agendas for that day.
-
They had no chance of winning in 2020 as the boundaries will change. They could have had any leader. They would lose. There us only one chance for the Tories not to win in 2020 and that is a fight in the Tories over the EU referendum. Given that the Liberals are screwed for the foreseeable future, UKIP can manage to have a split with1 MP, the Liberals are screwed and if they get 15 seat as will be a ecstatic, that's it.
I would think that the Lib Dems will scrape together twenty or so MPs next time. As I see it Labour lost in Scotland, whilst I would like to blame it on Harpy & co insisting that Labour ran the same team in 2015 who lost in 2010 I don't really think that is the reason.
-
Its sad the Tories have a tiny majority the opposition should be able to hold them to account much better than they are.
I'd have thought that that would be a point of thankfulness. The problem is that Labour, in itself, isn't sufficiently large enough alone to hold the Tories to account in the way we'd like them to, and with they and the SNP being somewhat disagreeable to each other, the opposition is somewhat fragmented.
-
I'd have thought that that would be a point of thankfulness. The problem is that Lasbour, in itself, isn't sufficiently large enough alone to hold the Tories to account in the way we'd like them to, and with they and the SNP being somewhat disagreeable to each other, the opposition is somewhat fragmented.
Not convinced that makes that much difference - in order to make much of the smallish majority. you need to be able to have rebels from the Tories. At the start of the parliament, Labour were in disarray and were abstaining at times on motions where the govt could have been pressed close, Since Corbyn became leader that has reduced and there has been some success in the opposition, notably on tax credits, but that came about because thee were likely to be enough rebels on the Tory side.
-
Dear Hope,
Gonners, you say that you "don't want to know about past Government failures", but how long has the particular tax legislation that governs this particular area of the corporate world been in existence? I believe that we are reaping the whirlwind from bad decisions by past Governments - possibly going back as far as Wilson and Thatcher.
Couldn't agree more, but the question was asked and was not answered, 3% tax for google, is that fair, he did not answer the question, instead he attacked past Government and that he trusts the H.M.R.C and some mob who audit H.M.R.C.
Corbyn also mentioned Geoff, Geoff wants to know if he can pay 3% tax, Geoff is me and you, I am also thinking of doing all my shopping at Tesco and asking if it is alright if I pay them in a couple of years time, Mr Cameron has a long way to go before he understands the word, Fairness.
Gonnagle.
-
I would think that the Lib Dems will scrape together twenty or so MPs next time. As I see it Labour lost in Scotland, whilst I would like to blame it on Harpy & co insisting that Labour ran the same team in 2015 who lost in 2010 I don't really think that is the reason.
Again we are back at even with every Scottish seat, Labour would have lost. I know Prof D blames the loss in England in part on the SNP, but I would suggest that it all arises because Labour supported the demonization of the SNP by the Tories, in part because of tribalism, in part because they didn't want to be seen to be too left, This lost them support in Scotland because combined with the referendum campaign, they then looked too right. They allowed the Tories to dictate an agenda in which there was no Goldilocks position.
Those problems though are not recent. The #what are we for' question wasn't addressed after the 2010 election and whther David Milliband would have made that much difference is difficult to say. People who don't become leaders can always be seen in a rose tinted way as they don't then make mistakes, I don't think that going forward Labour can sensibly position itself as centrist without losing lots of union money - not because the unions will stop giving but because they need to ask them to stop. Again it's been a success from the Tories to get them portrayed in the pockets f the unions, while the campaign to associate Tories with bankers hasn't quite worked, in part because it's a given.
The Labour party is wracked with self loathing, and the unity that came about because of 18 years of Tory govt is a distant memory. It got elected in 1997 because it had becpme a post-Thatcher party. It needs to become a post Blair party now but I don't think anyone knows what that means.
There's a sort of interregnum period going on across British politics at the moment while we wait on the EU referendum, what the slowdown in China and the collapsed oil price really means, the US election, and the next steps for the Labour party are part of that.
-
Again we are back at even with every Scottish seat, Labour would have lost. I know Prof D blames the loss in England in part on the SNP, but I would suggest that it all arises because Labour supported the demonization of the SNP by the Tories, in part because of tribalism, in part because they didn't want to be seen to be too left, This lost them support in Scotland because combined with the referendum campaign, they then looked too right. They allowed the Tories to dictate an agenda in which there was no Goldilocks position.
Agree up to a point - certainly the Labour position on the referendum did it no favours, but they had no choice - they are a UK party and they either had to campaign for or against independence. There was no way they could have (in principle) campaigned against, and trying to be neutral isn't impossible and wold have been seen as being against the status quo - i.e. for independence. And ultimately as a UK party they have to be concerned with the whole of the UK, while they got it in the neck in Scotland for campaigning against, just image the backlash in England had they campaigned for independence - there would have been a blood bath.
And yes I am convinced that the threat of a Lab/SNP coalition cost Labour votes and seats in England. First because it was so obviously a major (perhaps the major) campaigning strategy of the tories in England (there seem to be a lot of Scottish based posters here, so you may, not unreasonably have missed this as I suspect this wasn't part of the strategy in Scotland). Secondly because all the polling suggested it to be a very distinct possibility - indeed the most likely outcome (sure the polls were wrong, but hindsight is a wonderful thing). And thirdly because both the tories and the SNP were very happy to quietly go along with that narrative as it suited their purposes.
Those problems though are not recent. The #what are we for' question wasn't addressed after the 2010 election and whther David Milliband would have made that much difference is difficult to say. People who don't become leaders can always be seen in a rose tinted way as they don't then make mistakes, I don't think that going forward Labour can sensibly position itself as centrist without losing lots of union money - not because the unions will stop giving but because they need to ask them to stop. Again it's been a success from the Tories to get them portrayed in the pockets f the unions, while the campaign to associate Tories with bankers hasn't quite worked, in part because it's a given.
Again largely I agree - certainly it isn't possible to predict with certainly what would have happened had another leader been elected. That said I am pretty confident that David M would have done better - partly because he is a more polished and capable leader, secondly because he is politically more mainstream than his brother and finally because he wouldn't have been seen as the union's man. It was pretty easy for the tories to get the Miliband in the pocket of the unions mantra to stick as it was clear to everyone that he was only leader because of the unions - it was them wot won it for him.
The Labour party is wracked with self loathing, and the unity that came about because of 18 years of Tory govt is a distant memory. It got elected in 1997 because it had becpme a post-Thatcher party. It needs to become a post Blair party now but I don't think anyone knows what that means.
There's a sort of interregnum period going on across British politics at the moment while we wait on the EU referendum, what the slowdown in China and the collapsed oil price really means, the US election, and the next steps for the Labour party are part of that.
Not sure I agree that it is 'wracked with self loathing'. Nope I think it is in a state of turmoil, between purest principle and pragmatic politics. There are plenty in the Labour party who want to be pure to their political principles (which of course are different for everyone), even if this makes them unelectable - indeed I know plenty of Labour members who have always been happiest in opposition, as a kind of superannuated protest group, railing at the tories but actually rather happy not to have to justify their own decisions - as they never actually have to do so being in opposition.
Then there are the pragmatists, those that recognise that being ideologically 'pure' but never actually being able to change anything, because to change things you need to be in power, is non-sense. And that the point about being in politics is to make a difference, and to make a difference you need to be in power and therefore to win elections.
-
Agree up to a point - certainly the Labour position on the referendum did it no favours, but they had no choice - they are a UK party and they either had to campaign for or against independence. There was no way they could have (in principle) campaigned against, and trying to be neutral isn't impossible and wold have been seen as being against the status quo - i.e. for independence. And ultimately as a UK party they have to be concerned with the whole of the UK, while they got it in the neck in Scotland for campaigning against, just image the backlash in England had they campaigned for independence - there would have been a blood bath.
I think the problem was more that the campaign became something where they were deeply wrapped up with the Tory party and it became easy to portray it as being mere red Tories. That combined with a lack of recognition that they were being seen as nor really being in favour of anything, and the lack of effectiveness of Miliband E caused further problems. However, there are long term historical reasons for the problems in Scotland.
The point I was making about being complicit in the demonization of the SNP, while a tactic that started in the referendum with the spurious idea of cybernats, spurious because it was predicated on there only being nutters on one side of the issue, it was the tactic the Tories ran with in the GE and because Labour were already hitched to it, and because of the long term historic issues, they helped continue. So instead of saying, if there was a hung parliament we would work to achieve xyz and if the SNP would accept that we could work with them, they just agreed with the Tories and therefore looked again like red Tories and contributed to their weakness in England.
And yes I am convinced that the threat of a Lab/SNP coalition cost Labour votes and seats in England. First because it was so obviously a major (perhaps the major) campaigning strategy of the tories in England (there seem to be a lot of Scottish based posters here, so you may, not unreasonably have missed this as I suspect this wasn't part of the strategy in Scotland). Secondly because all the polling suggested it to be a very distinct possibility - indeed the most likely outcome (sure the polls were wrong, but hindsight is a wonderful thing). And thirdly because both the tories and the SNP were very happy to quietly go along with that narrative as it suited their purposes.
No, I was perfectly well aware of the tactic, and that was the bit in my first paragraph that you missed. I think you have a real blind spot here in terms of your emotional reaction to the idea of nationalism and it colours how you read what others are saying. As I have reiterated aboce, it was the Labour party's tacit (and in Scotland open) acceptance that the Tories were right about the SNP that put them into this cleft stick.
I would agree with you that it had an effect but one that the Labour party helped along. I'd even argue that while overall it wasn't necessarily enough to show in opinion polls, it was significant because of its effect in marginals, particularly Lib Dems seats. I just don't think that Labour could have achieved anything else with their tactics.
Again in terms of the idea that this was the intention of the SNP, it's indicative of the whole priblem. When the Sec State for Scotland bleakest memo he now admits was incorrect, Labourr jumped on the bandwagon to say SNP bad, and they want the Tories to win, without even looking at tgr motivation of A Carmichael or ensuring that it was true.
Again largely I agree - certainly it isn't possible to predict with certainly what would have happened had another leader been elected. That said I am pretty confident that David M would have done better - partly because he is a more polished and capable leader, secondly because he is politically more mainstream than his brother and finally because he wouldn't have been seen as the union's man. It was pretty easy for the tories to get the Miliband in the pocket of the unions mantra to stick as it was clear to everyone that he was only leader because of the unions - it was them wot won it for him.
Which is why union involvement in the way that it is is problematic for the Labour party. When even their supporters agree that a leader is in the pocket of the unions, and that is a bad thing, there are issues which don't arise in the Tory party.
Not sure I agree that it is 'wracked with self loathing'. Nope I think it is in a state of turmoil, between purest principle and pragmatic politics. There are plenty in the Labour party who want to be pure to their political principles (which of course are different for everyone), even if this makes them unelectable - indeed I know plenty of Labour members who have always been happiest in opposition, as a kind of superannuated protest group, railing at the tories but actually rather happy not to have to justify their own decisions - as they never actually have to do so being in opposition.
Then there are the pragmatists, those that recognise that being ideologically 'pure' but never actually being able to change anything, because to change things you need to be in power, is non-sense. And that the point about being in politics is to make a difference, and to make a difference you need to be in power and therefore to win elections.
I actually think I could not have seen a greater illustration of my point about self loathing, or rather it shows what I really meant, was completely split with enmity and loathing, than your last couple of paragraphs. If it was a Corbyn suppirter, it would just have changed round so that what you call 'pragmatists' would be portrayed as selfish careerists with no principles who should be in the Tory party. And they would have said there is no point in being in power if you don't change things when you are there.
I am sympathetic to those in the Labour party who you see as pragmatists, but for a long time now they have been their own worst enemy. There were hints towards the end of the campaign when i felt that Yvette Cooper was beginning to make strides but there really wasn't enough on offer to make people think that there was an alternative vision that could offer anything than a slightly different version of the Tories and the whole abstaining nonsense at the start of the oarluament, when in at least one case they could have defeated the govt, was a nonsense. I also think that happened because they again followed the narrative on the SNP, and that wasn't about pragmatism but the same emotional blindspot that I think you have.
I think the party is currently unleadable and that members are so keen to follow, once more, a Tory narrative about how bad their leader is is an illustration of that. I don't think Corbyn has had much choice in being good or bad as a leader, it's a nightmare to try and do anything with. I don't think any of the other candidates would have done much better, in part because had they won,they would be seen as merely Tory lite. That they do not appear an effective opposition is because they are locked into two parties in one, and are their own opposition.
-
Dear Prof,
there seem to be a lot of Scottish based posters here
No, but we are a very opinionated and noisy lot so it can feel that way. :P
Gonnagle.
-
I don't want to know about past Government failures,
Isn't that just sticking your head in the sand. I want to know what Labour would do, we know they did nothing, what would they do in future.
Why people are not boycotting Google I have no idea, get adblock or use Bing.
-
I think the problem was more that the campaign became something where they were deeply wrapped up with the Tory party and it became easy to portray it as being mere red Tories.
I think you are continuing to misconstrue a perception of the party in Scotland to that which was the case in England. And remember I was talking about the perception in England, particularly relating to the possibility of Labour going into coalition with the SNP. And lets not forget 90% of the population of the UK and 90% of Westminster seats aren't in Scotland.
So it is non-sense to suggest that labour failed to win seats in England because they were perceived at too right wing - red Tories, as you suggest. Quite the reverse - they didn't win the key marginals, such as Nuneaton because they, and in particular Miliband and Balls, were perceived as too left wing. Whether that was right or not isn't the point, that was the perception. Couple that with a fear that Salmond and or Sturgeon would be influencing matters in government and you had a perfect toxic mix sufficient for the Tories to hold on to the key seats they needed that were Labour targets.
-
I think you are continuing to misconstrue a perception of the party in Scotland to that which was the case in England. And remember I was talking about the perception in England, particularly relating to the possibility of Labour going into coalition with the SNP. And lets not forget 90% of the population of the UK and 90% of Westminster seats aren't in Scotland.
So it is non-sense to suggest that labour failed to win seats in England because they were perceived at too right wing - red Tories, as you suggest. Quite the reverse - they didn't win the key marginals, such as Nuneaton because they, and in particular Miliband and Balls, were perceived as too left wing. Whether that was right or not isn't the point, that was the perception. Couple that with a fear that Salmond and or Sturgeon would be influencing matters in government and you had a perfect toxic mix sufficient for the Tories to hold on to the key seats they needed that were Labour targets.
No, i'm referring to the referendum campaign here ( and that is because it is in reply to your paragraph on their position in the referendum )and how it affected the perception in Scotland. I also in the rest of the post covered that I agree with that there was a different effect in England which allowed the Tories to exploit Labour not being clear about what they represented, added to the problem of their own emotional response to the SNP. Something I think, as already suggested, you share, and indeed I think is apparent in the use of language such as 'perfect toxic mix' and that you have taken a small extract fro what I wrote, misread it because of that and answered with something that I had both happily admitted had an effect and dealt with in detail of what I thought Labour had done to contribute to their own problems.
-
Labour will survive. Sorry to do a 'floo one liner' but I am certain of it, having lived through many crises.
-
It isn't just that he is too left wing to appeal to a broad enough proportion of the electorate to win an election. He is also useless as a leader - just look at how many things he has botched during his few months in charge.
But if he comes good then the people will forget the bad beginnings. This is why the Tories are doing all the nasty stuff now and will sweeten up the voters nearer to 2020.
-
I know Prof D blames the loss in England in part on the SNP, but I would suggest that it all arises because Labour supported the demonization of the SNP by the Tories, in part because of tribalism, in part because they didn't want to be seen to be too left, This lost them support in Scotland because combined with the referendum campaign, they then looked too right. They allowed the Tories to dictate an agenda in which there was no Goldilocks position.
Many people I know would never support the Tories because they would say they do not represent them, working class background, etc, the Tories would deny this.
Many people I know would never support the SNP because they would say they do not represent them, not Scottish, there is no way the SNP can deny this.
The SNP are not that far left, they spin left but the policies are populist centre.
-
Many people I know would never support the Tories because they would say they do not represent them, working class background, etc, the Tories would deny this.
Many people I know would never support the SNP because they would say they do not represent them, not Scottish, there is no way the SNP can deny this.
The SNP are not that far left, they spin left but the policies are populist centre.
I don't really see the connection to the bit you quoted from me, though I think that might be because I wasn't clear about a couple of things.
Labour needed to have a much more radical look at what it was for in the last parliament but whether there is just something about long term parties of govt that list bring a bit too stunned to do that (cf Labour 2010 and Tories 1997), or something else, it didn't happen. Much of what they might have campaigned on. E.g. Tuition fees or the bedroom tax had their start under Labour. The bedroom tax caused them problems as due to the Bain doctrine they wouldn't work with the SNP to do anything about it so it looked in Scotland again as if they were just red Tories. That it took them a year overall to decide to oppose it made them look inept.
There is a book to be written, and I presume being written on this, as even if I expanded the above beyond the shorthand for this part, it hasn't even begun to look at the impact of UKIP on the Labour position. My take though is that overall because Labour didn't know what they were for, they ended up letting the agenda be set by others and finding themselves with nothing to be for and nowhere to go. If you live by triangulation, you can die by it too.
In that sense Corbyn becomes understandable as attempt to break out from that to something, anything to be for, as opposed to a party that was abstaining on welfare cuts.
-
Just to note that the Bain doctrine was that Labour shouldn't be seen to support the SNP on anything which lead to SLab complaining about a Scot gov budget not having money for apprenticeships, and when that was then included by the SNP, voting against the measures they had suggested.
-
Labour will survive. Sorry to do a 'floo one liner' but I am certain of it, having lived through many crises.
The BIG difficulty that Labour faces is that they have lumbered themselves with a system for leadership election that allows groups who have their own agenda to swing the process.
The introduction of the £3 vote (arguably) got Corbyn in.
-
The BIG difficulty that Labour faces is that they have lumbered themselves with a system for leadership election that allows groups who have their own agenda to swing the process.
The introduction of the £3 vote (arguably) got Corbyn in.
Corbyn is a symptom, not the problem. I know of no electoral form that wouldn't allow for groups with their own agenda to swing the process and previously they had union block voting so in that sense this is a much more open process. Taking out the 3 quid supporters Corbyn had about 47% of first preferences, so good chance of winning anyway.
Whoever won they would have been entirely likely to lose in 2020, even without the boundary changes. They also would have done nothing to resolve the what are they for question, and would also have effectively been representative of groups with their own agenda (and quite right too otherwise not much point in being in politics).
Blaming Corbyn and his supporters for the position Labour are currently in is like blaming pigs heads for David Cameron
-
Corbyn is a symptom, not the problem. I know of no electoral form that wouldn't allow for groups with their own agenda to swing the process and previously they had union block voting so in that sense this is a much more open process. Taking out the 3 quid supporters Corbyn had about 47% of first preferences, so good chance of winning anyway.
I'd agree that Corbyn is just a figurehead but probably a good choice as he was a bit of a hero for the Left. However, I recall seeing some figures soon after the election that suggested:
A/ There were a huge number of £3 voters.
B/ The vast majority were for Corbyn.
C/ These numbers ensured him a first round win.
Of course, he may still have won in the second round (given the poor performance of his opponents) but the system is an open invitation to people who do not have the best interests of the party at heart. I have even heard Conservatives claiming to have voted for him.
Whoever won they would have been entirely likely to lose in 2020, even without the boundary changes. They also would have done nothing to resolve the what are they for question, and would also have effectively been representative of groups with their own agenda (and quite right too otherwise not much point in being in politics).
Blaming Corbyn and his supporters for the position Labour are currently in is like blaming pigs heads for David Cameron
I think everyone agrees that 2020 is likely to be pretty tough for Labour, but with a Corbynesque leader it will be no contest.
-
I'd agree that Corbyn is just a figurehead but probably a good choice as he was a bit of a hero for the Left. However, I recall seeing some figures soon after the election that suggested:
A/ There were a huge number of £3 voters.
B/ The vast majority were for Corbyn.
C/ These numbers ensured him a first round win.
Of course, he may still have won in the second round (given the poor performance of his opponents) but the system is an open invitation to people who do not have the best interests of the party at heart. I have even heard Conservatives claiming to have voted for him.
Overall there were about 420,000 votes, of these about 110k were the 3 quid ones - Corbyn got about 80% of those - but take those out, and I was wrong on my initial memory, he had about 52% of first preferences so would have been elected without them.I think everyone agrees that 2020 is likely to be pretty tough for Labour, but with a Corbynesque leader it will be no contest.
Unless there was going to be a meltdown in the Tory party (Still a possibility), it would have been no contest anyway, People let their attitude to Corbyn get in the way of actually looking at the numbers and at the position the Labour party found itself in. Labour isn't going to lose because it has Corbyn, it has Corbyn because it was going to lose.
-
Labour needed to have a much more radical look at what it was for in the last parliament but whether there is just something about long term parties of govt that list bring a bit too stunned to do that (cf Labour 2010 and Tories 1997), or something else, it didn't happen. Much of what they might have campaigned on. E.g. Tuition fees or the bedroom tax had their start under Labour. The bedroom tax caused them problems as due to the Bain doctrine they wouldn't work with the SNP to do anything about it so it looked in Scotland again as if they were just red Tories. That it took them a year overall to decide to oppose it made them look inept.
Agree if they work against the SNP it will look in Scotland as if they are just red Tories and with the nationalists elsewhere. Besides if the SNP are effectively Labour but standing up for the people of Scotland what need of there is Labour in Scotland.
There is a book to be written, and I presume being written on this, as even if I expanded the above beyond the shorthand for this part, it hasn't even begun to look at the impact of UKIP on the Labour position. My take though is that overall because Labour didn't know what they were for, they ended up letting the agenda be set by others and finding themselves with nothing to be for and nowhere to go. If you live by triangulation, you can die by it too.
Ahh yes UKIP, whilst there are those on the extreme right that would say 'we don't want those immigrants' and blame everything (even the traffic) on immigrants there are those on the left who claim large scale immigration is great lets let everyone in.
I think the electorate is broadly comfortable with immigration but understand if we have a housing crisis and 300,000 people arriving every year then this represents an issue.
There is the rather obvious argument lets build up the infrastructure but normally this is drowned out by those on the right claiming you are not standing up for 'British values' and those on the left claiming you are against 'brown people'.
Long winded but to have a winning policy on immigration its a harder place to get to for Labour, so UKIP have enjoyed support from a lot of traditional Labour supporters.
In that sense Corbyn becomes understandable as attempt to break out from that to something, anything to be for, as opposed to a party that was abstaining on welfare cuts.
I think its more of a case than the policies that appeal to the electorate have been better put forward by the SNP and UKIP, Labour had no where else to go.
I don't think I disagree with you there are a number of factors, however the SNP rhetoric is toxic to those that are not Scottish and any party that works with them is going to be affected by that.
The centre left has been divided, in part by Labour's poor performance, how brilliant the SNP are, and the issues that are important in the current climate.
Divided and now ruled.
-
Overall there were about 420,000 votes, of these about 110k were the 3 quid ones - Corbyn got about 80% of those - but take those out, and I was wrong on my initial memory, he had about 52% of first preferences so would have been elected without them.
Assuming your figures are correct, that is still a hell of a lot of bought votes for Corbyn.
Unless there was going to be a meltdown in the Tory party (Still a possibility), it would have been no contest anyway, People let their attitude to Corbyn get in the way of actually looking at the numbers and at the position the Labour party found itself in. Labour isn't going to lose because it has Corbyn, it has Corbyn because it was going to lose.
One of the functions of an opposition is to be 'a government in waiting' - ready to exploit any failures of the actual government. However, if the opposition has no credibility then the government can get away with virtually anything.
-
Agree if they work against the SNP it will look in Scotland as if they are just red Tories and with the nationalists elsewhere. Besides if the SNP are effectively Labour but standing up for the people of Scotland what need of there is Labour in Scotland.
And they did indeed work against the SNP and specifically the SNP - see the Bain doctrine covered below
Ahh yes UKIP, whilst there are those on the extreme right that would say 'we don't want those immigrants' and blame everything (even the traffic) on immigrants there are those on the left who claim large scale immigration is great lets let everyone in.
I think the electorate is broadly comfortable with immigration but understand if we have a housing crisis and 300,000 people arriving every year then this represents an issue.
There is the rather obvious argument lets build up the infrastructure but normally this is drowned out by those on the right claiming you are not standing up for 'British values' and those on the left claiming you are against 'brown people'.
Long winded but to have a winning policy on immigration its a harder place to get to for Labour, so UKIP have enjoyed support from a lot of traditional Labour supporters.
I think your idea that there is an easy left/right split on this is a nonsense, or rather I think that the right left split itself is a bit of a nonsense. There is a strong push against immigration from some traditional Labour voters, in part because inherent racism, but also because they see it as an essentially capitalist idea and about reducing wages. It's too easy to forget that the left have an issue on Europe and there have always been those supportive of being outside because they see it as essentially a capitalist neo liberal trading bloc. There is a good chance I would suggest that the EU vote could be an 'out' because of votes from the left. I've seen a lot of discussion amongst Greens that despite what the leadership say they will vote out because of TTIP, and there are growing comments on that in both Labour and the SNP, never mind the various small socialist groupings.
As for UKIP itself, it's an odd mixture of free market and protectionist, right and left, but in the last election I think did more damage to Labour than Tories.
I think its more of a case than the policies that appeal to the electorate have been better put forward by the SNP and UKIP, Labour had no where else to go.
I don't think I disagree with you there are a number of factors, however the SNP rhetoric is toxic to those that are not Scottish and any party that works with them is going to be affected by that.
The centre left has been divided, in part by Labour's poor performance, how brilliant the SNP are, and the issues that are important in the current climate.
Divided and now ruled.
It is undoubted that the SNP are toxic, in idea more than anything else - and because in the main by a concerted attempt by Con, Lib Dems, and Labour to make them so, to some but not all non Scottish voters, just enough to make a difference - particularly in the GE, Lib Dem voters. I don't think it is the rhetoric - I think it is the rhetoric about them, that Labour because of their own issues in Scotland sometimes tacitly, sometimes openly supported - and, of course, added to do by a Lib Dem minister leaking an wrong memo. What rhetoric of Sturgeon do you think was so toxic?
-
Assuming your figures are correct, that is still a hell of a lot of bought votes for Corbyn.
One of the functions of an opposition is to be 'a government in waiting' - ready to exploit any failures of the actual government. However, if the opposition has no credibility then the government can get away with virtually anything.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Party_%28UK%29_leadership_election,_2015
Details in the link above (the £3 ones are the registered) - note the number doesn't matter if the case is about whether he would have won without them - he would.
As for credibility, this was the party that through the other approach was abstaining from welfare votes, in part because it didn't want to be seen as anti austerity or pro austerity, and didn't want to vote with the SNP if it made it look as if the SNP had helped defeat the govt - yes that's a credible opposition. To be an opposition you have to oppose, to oppose you need to think something is better, at least Corbyn has that, even if doomed. That you think he isn't credible doesn't mean the alternatives were.
-
Assuming your figures are correct, that is still a hell of a lot of bought votes for Corbyn.
On a specific point, you might want to edit that part of the post, it seems to imply direct bribery.
-
For the record - Corbyn attained just under 50% of the first preference votes from actual members of the party.
-
One of the functions of an opposition is to be 'a government in waiting' - ready to exploit any failures of the actual government. However, if the opposition has no credibility then the government can get away with virtually anything.
The first job of the opposition is to be just that - the opposition, so to oppose the government of the day and hold them to account.
A good opposition will go further and be a credible government in waiting - think the period before 1997.
Sadly the current opposition is neither a credible opposition (failing to take the argument to the government - rather talking to itself) nor, of course, being a credible government in waiting.
Horrific polling again for Corbyn today - only just over 40% of Labour voters in May last year satisfied with Corbyn (source Ipsos MORI). For comparison, nearly 80% of 2015 Tory voters think Cameron is doing a good job.
-
The first job of the opposition is to be just that - the opposition, so to oppose the government of the day and hold them to account.
A good opposition will go further and be a credible government in waiting - think the period before 1997.
Sadly the current opposition is neither a credible opposition (failing to take the argument to the government - rather talking to itself) nor, of course, being a credible government in waiting.
Horrific polling again for Corbyn today - only just over 40% of Labour voters in May last year satisfied with Corbyn (source Ipsos MORI). For comparison, nearly 80% of 2015 Tory voters think Cameron is doing a good job.
All true, just not really that much to do with Corbyn. The party is indulging in backstabbing and part of it is happy to go along with and be used by Tory attacks to try and get rid of Corbyn. Again, he's the symptom, not the cause.
-
Dear Me,
The ah well! of British society.
1. ah well it is okay that we have to fight for a living wage.
2. ah well, food banks, ah well.
3. ah well google are only paying 3% tax, ah well.
4. ah well, bed room tax, ah well.
5. Bunch of immigrants, ah well.
6. Price of a train ticket, ah well.
7. Budget cuts, ah well.
8. EU exit, ah well.
9. NHS, A&E under pressure, ah well.
10. Bombing innocent civilians, ah well.
Maybe it should be, so what or who cares, well Mr Corbyn cares.
Gonnagle.
-
On a specific point, you might want to edit that part of the post, it seems to imply direct bribery.
Well it was widely publicised that all-and-sundry could 'buy' a vote in the election by making an online payment . Is that as bribery or stupidity?
I don't pretend to know.
-
I think your idea that there is an easy left/right split on this is a nonsense, or rather I think that the right left split itself is a bit of a nonsense.
Ahh well I think you are talking nonsense as well. There isn't an absolute left /right split but there is a split.
There is a strong push against immigration from some traditional Labour voters, in part because inherent racism, but also because they see it as an essentially capitalist idea and about reducing wages. It's too easy to forget that the left have an issue on Europe and there have always been those supportive of being outside because they see it as essentially a capitalist neo liberal trading bloc. There is a good chance I would suggest that the EU vote could be an 'out' because of votes from the left. I've seen a lot of discussion amongst Greens that despite what the leadership say they will vote out because of TTIP, and there are growing comments on that in both Labour and the SNP, never mind the various small socialist groupings.
Don't disagree.
As for UKIP itself, it's an odd mixture of free market and protectionist, right and left, but in the last election I think did more damage to Labour than Tories.
Agree don't think I wrote anything that would disagree.
It is undoubted that the SNP are toxic, in idea more than anything else - and because in the main by a concerted attempt by Con, Lib Dems, and Labour to make them so, to some but not all non Scottish voters, just enough to make a difference - particularly in the GE, Lib Dem voters. I don't think it is the rhetoric - I think it is the rhetoric about them, that Labour because of their own issues in Scotland sometimes tacitly, sometimes openly supported - and, of course, added to do by a Lib Dem minister leaking an wrong memo. What rhetoric of Sturgeon do you think was so toxic?
Oh come off it, independence is guaranteed if the SNP are seen as toxic by rUK. Dear me NS the SNP are a slick party of politicians and very good at what they do, Sturgeon bangs the drum for fighting for what is best for the Scottish people and knows full well how that comes across elsewhere.
-
All true, just not really that much to do with Corbyn. The party is indulging in backstabbing and part of it is happy to go along with and be used by Tory attacks to try and get rid of Corbyn. Again, he's the symptom, not the cause.
I disagree - he is largely the cause.
Firstly because he is woefully inexperienced in leadership terms having never really held any position that requires authority and leadership (despite being 66, which tell you a lot). Secondly the key group he has to lead, first and foremost, his MPs largely disagree with him and did not support him as leader. And finally because he is so clearly out of step with the mainstream views within the country, the views of those voters who make the difference between a party winning and losing - he might speak to a few hundred thousand armchair political anoraks (including many of those £3 'supporters') he does speak to the millions who need change and won't get change if the opposition is unelectable.
Let's not forget that for all the failings of Miliband as a leader there wasn't the levels of concern and division that we see now - the cause is Corbyn. I doubt we'd have been seeing the party tearing itself apart had (for example) Burnham been elected.
-
Who is truer to the political ideals and principles that the Labour Party* was founded upon, Corbyn or the rabble of Tory-lite malcontents against him who don't even belong in the party in the first place? There's no "tearing apart," only the disaffection of clueless Thatcherites terminally confused about which party they should be in.
* ("I joined the Labour Party, not the New Labour Party." - Tony Benn).
-
Dear Me,
The ah well! of British society.
1. ah well it is okay that we have to fight for a living wage.
2. ah well, food banks, ah well.
3. ah well google are only paying 3% tax, ah well.
4. ah well, bed room tax, ah well.
5. Bunch of immigrants, ah well.
6. Price of a train ticket, ah well.
7. Budget cuts, ah well.
8. EU exit, ah well.
9. NHS, A&E under pressure, ah well.
10. Bombing innocent civilians, ah well.
Maybe it should be, so what or who cares, well Mr Corbyn cares.
Gonnagle.
Lot's of people care Gonners. The point about being in politics is to place yourself in a position where you can actually do something about it - and if your in opposition you can 'care' all you like, but you can't change anything.
That's what is so frustrating at the moment - however 'caring' Corbyn might be he is the worst enemy of those who need change. Why - because by making his party clearly so unelectable he ensures that rather than a left of centre government being in power in 2020 that might actually start to enact change, we will continue to have the Tories who are largely disinterested at best, or actively antagonistic to those issues at worst.
And actually Corbyn isn't even effectively banging on about those issues - frankly he seems so obsessed with the purity of his political ideal that he isn't even dealing with these key points. Indeed he comes across as a kind of left wing elderly lecturer, making sterile and theoretical arguments (and fudges), harking back to the politics of the 70s and 80s, rather than putting forward any actual practical steps to address those issues which you quite rightly recognise as critical to the future of Britain.
Sadly with Corbyn in leadership it won't be him or his party (however well meaning) setting the agenda through to 2025, but the Tories, and I hate to think how many permanent (and negative changes) they will have enacted by them.
-
I disagree - he is largely the cause.
Firstly because he is woefully inexperienced in leadership terms having never really held any position that requires authority and leadership (despite being 66, which tell you a lot). Secondly the key group he has to lead, first and foremost, his MPs largely disagree with him and did not support him as leader. And finally because he is so clearly out of step with the mainstream views within the country, the views of those voters who make the difference between a party winning and losing - he might speak to a few hundred thousand armchair political anoraks (including many of those £3 'supporters') he does speak to the millions who need change and won't get change if the opposition is unelectable.
Let's not forget that for all the failings of Miliband as a leader there wasn't the levels of concern and division that we see now - the cause is Corbyn. I doubt we'd have been seeing the party tearing itself apart had (for example) Burnham been elected.
Well I suppose this is the final nail in the coffin of the Kalam, what began to exist, Corbyn's leadership, is the cause of why it began to exist, according to you.
Corbyn is only leader because the Labour Party had no idea what it was for, was scared to vote against welfare cuts (or indeed for them), had a least had a disjunct between members and MPs,and now after Corbyn was elected has members who want to blame their infighting purely on him.
Blaming Corbyn for the Tories domination may make you feel good, but you should start realising that you are part of the issue too.
-
Who is truer to the political ideals and principles that the Labour Party* was founded upon, Corbyn or the rabble of Tory-lite malcontents against him who don't even belong in the party in the first place? There's no "tearing apart," only the disaffection of clueless Thatcherites terminally confused about which party they should be in.
* ("I joined the Labour Party, not the New Labour Party." - Tony Benn).
You cannot achieve anything in politics - which remember means making changes to people's lives - without having your hand on the levers of power. Oppositions achieve nothing unless they make themselves electable and then get elected.
I've spent far too long in the past arguing with ex Labour members who were delighted to be in opposition, and therefore never have to justify changes actually made, rather than in power. The kind you slunk off to the SWP in the late 90s so they could keep their politics 'pure' - and guess what - they achieved nothing more than the odd campaigning sticker and poorly attending evening political event. How many people's lives were affected by them - none. Whatever you might say about new Labour - they achieved things. Now sure some you might not like, but don't forget the minimum wage, devolution, massive investment in NHS, education and other public services to reverse decades of under-funding, civil partnerships, maintaining a strong and stable economy (longest period of continuous growth) until the global crisis hit, free nursery places/surestart centres etc, banning fox hunting, banning smoking in public places, restoring free entrance to museums etc etc.
Every one consistent with left wing political ideal and none (with the exception of the economy) likely to have been introduced by a Tory government at the time.
None of this could have happened without being in power. If you want changes to be made which are consistent with left wing Labour ideals, you won't get that by making the Labour party unelectable. You will get the reverse, right wing politics from the Tories.
-
Corbyn is only leader because the Labour Party had no idea what it was for, was scared to vote against welfare cuts (or indeed for them), had a least had a disjunct between members and MPs,and now after Corbyn was elected has members who want to blame their infighting purely on him.
Corbyn is only leader because some idiot MPs 'lent' their support to him allowing him to be on the ballot paper. Fools.
-
Ahh well I think you are talking nonsense as well. There isn't an absolute left /right split but there is a split.
Don't disagree.
Given that the bit you don't disagree with is the reasoning behind the bit you do, I would suggest you are confused. The idea that the left is for free immigration, and the right is against it is simply incorrect for the reasons you have agreed with.
Agree don't think I wrote anything that would disagree.
Oh come off it, independence is guaranteed if the SNP are seen as toxic by rUK. Dear me NS the SNP are a slick party of politicians and very good at what they do, Sturgeon bangs the drum for fighting for what is best for the Scottish people and knows full well how that comes across elsewhere.
I note that when challenged you couldn't produce anything other than a reassertion of your generalisation. There was lots of coverage during the GE of how Sturgeon's position in the debates appealed to non Scottish voters and polling at the time bore that out. That isn't to say that it wasn't off putting to some but factually your generalisation is not borne out.
There is a vague hint in your post that you think the SNP are so slick that they managed to ensure a Tory govt. Do you actually think that or is that just like Lib Dem Secretary of State happily spreading errors and lying about it?
-
Was speaking to a friend the other day who was a lifelong Labour supporter but has resigned his membership recently.
His main beef isn't Corbyn specifically but the abject failure of Labour, in his view, to make more noise regarding the EU referendum - he reckons than the only reason this is happening is as an attempt to resolve the Tory infighting, which he thinks will worsen no matter what the outcome is.
His is enraged (which seems a good description, for he was certainly angry) that Labour haven't done more to point out and that it isn't the British public that has demanded a EU referendum (that he thinks puts us all at unnecessary risk) and that it is happening only because the Tories think it will help them resolve their internal euro-sceptic faction problem. He reckons the likes of John Smith would have made far more of this as part of the role of a strong opposition.
If the Labour party are losing the likes of this guy then they really are up the creek without a paddle.
-
Whatever you might say about new Labour - they achieved things. Now sure some you might not like
I tried to canvass the opinion of several hundred thousand Iraqis and Afghans on the "New Labour" project but they were unavailable for comment.
-
Corbyn is only leader because some idiot MPs 'lent' their support to him allowing him to be on the ballot paper. Fools.
Only? I would suggest winning the leadership election is also related. Strange that you think it was reasonable for what was a majority of those entitled to vote should be effectively disregarded.
-
Was speaking to a friend the other day who was a lifelong Labour supporter but has resigned his membership recently.
His main beef isn't Corbyn specifically but the abject failure of Labour, in his view, to make more noise regarding the EU referendum - he reckons than the only reason this is happening is as an attempt to resolve the Tory infighting, which he thinks will worsen no matter what the outcome is.
His is enraged (which seems a good description, for he was certainly angry) that Labour haven't done more to point out and that it isn't the British public that has demanded a EU referendum (that he thinks puts us all at unnecessary risk) and that it is happening only because the Tories think it will help them resolve their internal euro-sceptic faction problem. He reckons the likes of John Smith would have made far more of this as part of the role of a strong opposition.
If the Labour party are losing the likes of this guy then they really are up the creek without a paddle.
Not really. My membership - on the day Corbyn was elected, and my first ever membership of a political party (nearly my first ever membership of anything come to that) - and that of tens of thousands of others will make up for it.
-
Was speaking to a friend the other day who was a lifelong Labour supporter but has resigned his membership recently.
His main beef isn't Corbyn specifically but the abject failure of Labour, in his view, to make more noise regarding the EU referendum - he reckons than the only reason this is happening is as an attempt to resolve the Tory infighting, which he thinks will worsen no matter what the outcome is.
His is enraged (which seems a good description, for he was certainly angry) that Labour haven't done more to point out and that it isn't the British public that has demanded a EU referendum (that he thinks puts us all at unnecessary risk) and that it is happening only because the Tories think it will help them resolve their internal euro-sceptic faction problem. He reckons the likes of John Smith would have made far more of this as part of the role of a strong opposition.
If the Labour party are losing the likes of this guy then they really are up the creek without a paddle.
Which sounds rather similar to my thoughts - navel gazing and talking inwardly, rather than getting out there and talking to the country about the issues that matter.
And it isn't just on the EU referendum but on so many other matters too - there is no control of the narrative - just the other week when Osborne was seeing many of his economic predictions disappearing in smoke, what was the shadow chancellor talking about in the media studios - Corbyn's endless and botched reshuffle. He should have been putting the boot in on Osborne - instead he was having to defend his own leader.
-
Not really. My membership - on the day Corbyn was elected, and my first ever membership of a political part (nearly my first ever membership of anything come to that) - and that of tens of thousands of others will make up for it.
Don't really agree, if those who were the backbone of members, who did the work and got out the vote then there are real issues about the way forward.
Also it's not clear that having a set of members so out of touch with the MPs is viable. Again as with Prof D, this isn't about who is wrong or right, or indeed about what is more likely to win votes, but a party about to tear itself apart isn't going to win. But it's not doing that because of Corbyn.
-
Which sounds rather similar to my thoughts - navel gazing and talking inwardly, rather than getting out there and talking to the country about the issues that matter.
And it isn't just on the EU referendum but on so many other matters too - there is no control of the narrative - just the other week when Osborne was seeing many of his economic predictions disappearing in smoke, what was the shadow chancellor talking about in the media studios - Corbyn's endless and botched reshuffle. He should have been putting the boot in on Osborne - instead he was having to defend his own leader.
And indulging in Corbyn bashing, with the lines fed to you by Tories is that navel gazing. Your posts are Moebius strips of Irony.
-
Not really. My membership - on the day Corbyn was elected, and my first ever membership of a political part (nearly my first ever membership of anything come to that) - and that of tens of thousands of others will make up for it.
Not is my experience of the 'new' members is widespread.
Theoretically membership in my constituency has increased by 50% - so you'd expect loads of new, keen people at meetings, out canvassing, delivering leaflet, getting stuck in talking to the electorate, putting themselves forward to stand as candidates for the local elections in May etc etc.
But not a sniff - these new members are invisible - not a single one has turned up a our branch meetings through the Autumn, not a single new person on the delivery rounds etc etc. If this kind of new member is replacing stalwart activist, doers, who actually get out there and put in the leg work to make a difference, then heaven help us.
So as a new member how many doors have you knocked on, phone calls have you made, leaflets have you delivered? In the first few months of my membership, back in 1996 I must have knocked on hundreds of doors, delivered more leaflets than you can throw a stick at, talked to hundreds of local electors etc etc. That's the kind of member you need, and I'm not convinced that the new members are like that - my own experience is that their levels of political activism probably extends little beyond shouting at Question Time from their armchair or perhaps having a 'nice' political debate at a dinner party.
-
And indulging in Corbyn bashing, with the lines fed to you by Tories is that navel gazing. Your posts are Moebius strips of Irony.
I've never been fed lines by the Tory party thank you very much. I'm perfectly capable of making my own views and my own lines.
-
I've never been fed lines by the Tory party thank you very much. I'm perfectly capable of making my own views and my own lines.
Doing a very good job as if you have the Daily Mail as a prompter.
-
Just to add that this chap was also scathing about Scottish Labour.
-
Doing a very good job as if you have the Daily Mail as a prompter.
Indeed ::)
-
Doing a very good job as if you have the Daily Mail as a prompter.
Don't make me laugh.
The kinds of points I've been putting across here are exactly the same as conversations I've been having with a lot of my friends who are life long Labour supporters and members who have been stalwarts of the party for decades. The difference isn't how we see the state of the party - I think our views of Corbyn are pretty well identical - but our response. It is likely that I'll leave the party (me and my wife agreed to give it 6 months from his election, and signs are looking way worse than we might have feared even back in September), I think my various friends are so much 'from the cradle' Labour that they'd never leave the party, but will simply stop doing things.
-
Don't make me laugh.
The kinds of points I've been putting across here are exactly the same as conversations I've been having with a lot of my friends who are life long Labour supporters and members who have been stalwarts of the party for decades. The difference isn't how we see the state of the party - I think our views of Corbyn are pretty well identical - but our response. It is likely that I'll leave the party (me and my wife agreed to give it 6 months from his election, and signs are looking way worse than we might have feared even back in September), I think my various friends are so much 'from the cradle' Labour that they'd never leave the party, but will simply stop doing things.
Not surprised, sounds like the same group think that Corbyn supporters roll out frequently. You and your friends are spending all your time talking about your little internecine dispute not about opposition.
-
Dear Gordon,
Just to add that this chap was also scathing about Scottish Labour.
That's my dilemma, who the hell do I vote for in the up and coming elections, if only Scottish Labour could get behind this Corbyn guy, can the Sturgeon train be halted, last thing I remember that Keza Dugdal wummin saying, she would help more people onto the property ladder.
What was it Shaker said,
Who is truer to the political ideals and principles that the Labour Party* was founded upon, Corbyn or the rabble of Tory-lite malcontents against him who don't even belong in the party in the first place? There's no "tearing apart," only the disaffection of clueless Thatcherites terminally confused about which party they should be in.
Tory lite malcontents :)
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Gordon,
That's my dilemma, who the hell do I vote for in the up and coming elections, if only Scottish Labour could get behind this Corbyn guy, can the Sturgeon train be halted, last thing I remember that Keza Dugdal wummin saying, she would help more people onto the property ladder.
What was it Shaker said,
Tory lite malcontents :)
Gonnagle.
Depends which of the votes and where the polls are, at least for me, being a tactical voter. Not sure what your constituency is but currently I think that l's going to be SNP in all likelihood, so that might not make a lot of difference. List vote i'd lean to Green as I think it might be the best way to get constructive opposition.
Scottish Labour has different problems than UK Lab. See Jackie Baillie's ludicrous comments to the Daily Mail about Philippa Whitford
-
Given that the bit you don't disagree with is the reasoning behind the bit you do, I would suggest you are confused. The idea that the left is for free immigration, and the right is against it is simply incorrect for the reasons you have agreed with.
I did say extreme right or though extreme left was implied, but hey ho, I'm generalising as you have to do in the real world.
I note that when challenged you couldn't produce anything other than a reassertion of your generalisation. There was lots of coverage during the GE of how Sturgeon's position in the debates appealed to non Scottish voters and polling at the time bore that out. That isn't to say that it wasn't off putting to some but factually your generalisation is not borne out.
There is a vague hint in your post that you think the SNP are so slick that they managed to ensure a Tory govt. Do you actually think that or is that just like Lib Dem Secretary of State happily spreading errors and lying about it?
What exactly do you expect me to produce. My claims are:-
1) The SNP are seen as toxic to many of the electorate in the rUK
2) The rise of the SNP lead, in part, to the demise of the Labour party in the 2015 election. Not just by taking seats of Labour in Scotland but because there was a debate over a Lab-SNP coalition, which the Tories used to frighten people to vote Tory.
I don't see you disagreeing with (1) maybe the cause of toxicity but the cause is a secondary issue.
Do you actually think I think that or is it some form of SNP spin that you want to associate me with someone in the LibDem party.
-
1) The SNP are seen as toxic to many of the electorate in the rUK
2) The rise of the SNP lead, in part, to the demise of the Labour party in the 2015 election. Not just by taking seats of Labour in Scotland but because there was a debate over a Lab-SNP coalition, which the Tories used to frighten people to vote Tory.
I don't see you disagreeing with (1) maybe the cause of toxicity but the cause is a secondary issue.
Do you actually think I think that or is it some form of SNP spin that you want to associate me with someone in the LibDem party.
I think that is entirely right, and I think it is perhaps a touch tricky to see this if you are embedded in Scotland rather than rUK.
The mistrust of the SNP isn't inherently their political positioning on the left-right spectrum. Indeed there are plenty in England who are largely aligned in that respect, and lets face it they aren't much different in traditional political terms from Labour. No, the mistrust is that the SNP, don't and don't even pretend to represent the whole of the UK. So their motivation is suspect. I'm sure you can see that.
So in rUK following the referendum the fact that Labour campaigned against the SNP is either largely an irrelevance because rUK people can't vote SNP so don't really care whether they are campaigned against or not, or a mild positive - standing up for the whole of the UK in opposition to a clearly partisan block.
So in rUK the negative effect for Labour wasn't that they'd campaigned against the SNP in the indyref, no it was the fear factor that a hung parliament might lead to the 'clearly partisan' SNP holding a balance of power and only being interested in Scottish self interest which as you might imagine didn't go down well in London, or Manchester, or rural Oxfordshire, or Cardiff or Anglesea.
-
I think the problem was more that the campaign became something where they were deeply wrapped up with the Tory party and it became easy to portray it as being mere red Tories. That combined with a lack of recognition that they were being seen as nor really being in favour of anything, and the lack of effectiveness of Miliband E caused further problems. However, there are long term historical reasons for the problems in Scotland.
The point I was making about being complicit in the demonization of the SNP, while a tactic that started in the referendum with the spurious idea of cybernats, spurious because it was predicated on there only being nutters on one side of the issue, it was the tactic the Tories ran with in the GE and because Labour were already hitched to it, and because of the long term historic issues, they helped continue. So instead of saying, if there was a hung parliament we would work to achieve xyz and if the SNP would accept that we could work with them, they just agreed with the Tories and therefore looked again like red Tories and contributed to their weakness in England.
No, I was perfectly well aware of the tactic, and that was the bit in my first paragraph that you missed. I think you have a real blind spot here in terms of your emotional reaction to the idea of nationalism and it colours how you read what others are saying. As I have reiterated aboce, it was the Labour party's tacit (and in Scotland open) acceptance that the Tories were right about the SNP that put them into this cleft stick.
I would agree with you that it had an effect but one that the Labour party helped along. I'd even argue that while overall it wasn't necessarily enough to show in opinion polls, it was significant because of its effect in marginals, particularly Lib Dems seats. I just don't think that Labour could have achieved anything else with their tactics.
Again in terms of the idea that this was the intention of the SNP, it's indicative of the whole priblem. When the Sec State for Scotland bleakest memo he now admits was incorrect, Labourr jumped on the bandwagon to say SNP bad, and they want the Tories to win, without even looking at tgr motivation of A Carmichael or ensuring that it was true.
Which is why union involvement in the way that it is is problematic for the Labour party. When even their supporters agree that a leader is in the pocket of the unions, and that is a bad thing, there are issues which don't arise in the Tory party.
I actually think I could not have seen a greater illustration of my point about self loathing, or rather it shows what I really meant, was completely split with enmity and loathing, than your last couple of paragraphs. If it was a Corbyn suppirter, it would just have changed round so that what you call 'pragmatists' would be portrayed as selfish careerists with no principles who should be in the Tory party. And they would have said there is no point in being in power if you don't change things when you are there.
I am sympathetic to those in the Labour party who you see as pragmatists, but for a long time now they have been their own worst enemy. There were hints towards the end of the campaign when i felt that Yvette Cooper was beginning to make strides but there really wasn't enough on offer to make people think that there was an alternative vision that could offer anything than a slightly different version of the Tories and the whole abstaining nonsense at the start of the oarluament, when in at least one case they could have defeated the govt, was a nonsense. I also think that happened because they again followed the narrative on the SNP, and that wasn't about pragmatism but the same emotional blindspot that I think you have.
I think the party is currently unleadable and that members are so keen to follow, once more, a Tory narrative about how bad their leader is is an illustration of that. I don't think Corbyn has had much choice in being good or bad as a leader, it's a nightmare to try and do anything with. I don't think any of the other candidates would have done much better, in part because had they won,they would be seen as merely Tory lite. That they do not appear an effective opposition is because they are locked into two parties in one, and are their own opposition.
...and to Prof. Davey
I think one reason why Labour did so badly was that they had no idea, nor cared, what their members thought or the concerns of the general public; which is why Corbyn's victory was such a surprise to them. They tried to say the right thing without knowing what the real right thing was and they have no vision or policy agenda. This is the politics of the main parties, to just say enough of what they think the voters want to hear to win the GE (or use events to create fear in their favour). It is nothing about real governance or working for the people. This academic bubble of 'dead' formulas to win the race is showing its age and has returned the attitude of the 'divine right' to rule regardless of what the people need or want.
-
Quick question for Jack Knave, is there something I am missing in your quotes from me? Don't see any comment/question?
-
No, i'm referring to the referendum campaign here ( and that is because it is in reply to your paragraph on their position in the referendum )and how it affected the perception in Scotland. I also in the rest of the post covered that I agree with that there was a different effect in England which allowed the Tories to exploit Labour not being clear about what they represented, added to the problem of their own emotional response to the SNP. Something I think, as already suggested, you share, and indeed I think is apparent in the use of language such as 'perfect toxic mix' and that you have taken a small extract fro what I wrote, misread it because of that and answered with something that I had both happily admitted had an effect and dealt with in detail of what I thought Labour had done to contribute to their own problems.
What did the Scots expect Labour to do in the referendum? Why are they so narked by what they did do?
-
Quick question for Jack Knave, is there something I am missing in your quotes from me? Don't see any comment/question?
It's a general observation and overview of the discussion that you and Prof. Davey are having. What I see as what is going on in politics today.
-
The BIG difficulty that Labour faces is that they have lumbered themselves with a system for leadership election that allows groups who have their own agenda to swing the process.
The introduction of the £3 vote (arguably) got Corbyn in.
The £3 vote would never have been an issue if MPs had voted in the ones genuinely wanted. Corbyn got a load of pity votes to make the debate balanced and broad but their naivety in doing this came back to bite them. This showed just how out of touch they were with what was going on with their grass roots.
-
All true, just not really that much to do with Corbyn. The party is indulging in backstabbing and part of it is happy to go along with and be used by Tory attacks to try and get rid of Corbyn. Again, he's the symptom, not the cause.
But a symptom that could go gangrenes as he digs in and brings his own into the fold and change things. This would create a state of internal war for Labour.
-
Well it was widely publicised that all-and-sundry could 'buy' a vote in the election by making an online payment . Is that as bribery or stupidity?
I don't pretend to know.
But they only paid up because Corbyn was there and he was there because the stupid Labour MPs gave him their votes, though they didn't really what him, else the choice would have been between the usual suspects.
-
The £3 vote would never have been an issue if MPs had voted in the ones genuinely wanted. Corbyn got a load of pity votes to make the debate balanced and broad but their naivety in doing this came back to bite them. This showed just how out of touch they were with what was going on with their grass roots.
I agree - but they really shouldn't have been naive enough to fail to recognise the danger of having a hard left candidate on the ballot paper, particularly given the electoral make-up.
Even ignoring the £3 supporters and the affiliated organisations, e.g. unions the membership of political parties have long had a tendency to be more extreme than their Westminster MPs and certainly than the public at large. Don't forget the Tories voted for Hague, when they could have had Clarke, and later voted for Duncan-Smith when again they could have had Clarke or even Portillo.
Party memberships have a long history of voting for the person who most aligns with their political 'anorak' world view rather than for someone electable by the general electorate.
-
I think that is entirely right, and I think it is perhaps a touch tricky to see this if you are embedded in Scotland rather than rUK.
Interesting term rUK .....Does it mean the rest of the UK or does it refer to the remaining UK?
Perhaps we should be referring to rUK as a potential integrated group of the former UK led by David Cameron...
or pigfUK for short.
-
I agree - but they really shouldn't have been naive enough to fail to recognise the danger of having a hard left candidate on the ballot paper, particularly given the electoral make-up.
Even ignoring the £3 supporters and the affiliated organisations, e.g. unions the membership of political parties have long had a tendency to be more extreme than their Westminster MPs and certainly than the public at large. Don't forget the Tories voted for Hague, when they could have had Clarke, and later voted for Duncan-Smith when again they could have had Clarke or even Portillo.
Party memberships have a long history of voting for the person who most aligns with their political 'anorak' world view rather than for someone electable by the general electorate.
When you put it like that it makes the Labour MPs look even more dumber than dumb. But that's what you get when one's Labour MPs have their heads up their wet-dream derrières.
-
The truly terrifying thing is that Labour's implosion will in all likelihood mean that inept, amoral streak of piss currently residing at No 11 will be PM. But that isn't down to Corbyn, but rather the fact that Labour had lost its way so entirely that voting Corbyn in was necessary to give the party an identity again. At least under him they have a clear direction and purpose again. If Corbyn himself isn't electable - and that is yet to be tested - then there is at least the chance that following him will be upcoming politicians with similar ideals who are.
I always vote Green or Independent (not a fan of traditional politics) but there's no doubt the country needs distinct political identities from its main parties.
-
I agree - but they really shouldn't have been naive enough to fail to recognise the danger of having a hard left candidate on the ballot paper, particularly given the electoral make-up.
Even ignoring the £3 supporters and the affiliated organisations, e.g. unions the membership of political parties have long had a tendency to be more extreme than their Westminster MPs and certainly than the public at large. Don't forget the Tories voted for Hague, when they could have had Clarke, and later voted for Duncan-Smith when again they could have had Clarke or even Portillo.
Party memberships have a long history of voting for the person who most aligns with their political 'anorak' world view rather than for someone electable by the general electorate.
Sorry I should correct myself.
Hague was voted in by MPs alone. But Duncan-Smith won a members vote against Clarke - just goes to show that perhaps the members are the worst people to decide who is a credible leader.
-
The truly terrifying thing is that Labour's implosion will in all likelihood mean that inept, amoral streak of piss currently residing at No 11 will be PM. But that isn't down to Corbyn, but rather the fact that Labour had lost its way so entirely that voting Corbyn in was necessary to give the party an identity again. At least under him they have a clear direction and purpose again.
I heard a commentator say that an unknown (i.e. someone not in the race yet but known by name by those who follow politics) will take the reins from Cameron. Not too sure why he/she thought this. I don't think they had anyone specific in mind but was going on historic reasons for such a claim.
-
I heard a commentator say that an unknown (i.e. someone not in the race yet but known by name by those who follow politics) will take the reins from Cameron. Not too sure why he/she thought this. I don't think they had anyone specific in mind but was going on historic reasons for such a claim.
That makes me feel so much better. :o
-
That makes me feel so much better. :o
I think part of the thinking is that Osborne has made too many misjudgements to be trusted to look 'clean' to the voters, and often to make sure that past faults don't drag a party down many MPs go for someone who is unsullied because he hasn't been in a ministerial cabinet role.
-
I think part of the thinking is that Osborne has made too many misjudgements to be trusted to look 'clean' to the voters, and often to make sure that past faults don't drag a party down many MPs go for someone who is unsullied because he hasn't been in a ministerial cabinet role.
Unlikely to be someone not in the cabinet, I notice that Sajid Javid effectively underlining his candidacy by his comments on Google, and his odds have come down considerably. Also moving in is Stephen Crabb and Priti Patel. Interesting also to note the reversals to policies being pushed by Michael Gove after Chris Grayling's tenure.
-
If it is someone not in the cabinet, would appear that Owen Paterson would be best placed.
-
So in rUK the negative effect for Labour wasn't that they'd campaigned against the SNP in the indyref, no it was the fear factor that a hung parliament might lead to the 'clearly partisan' SNP holding a balance of power and only being interested in Scottish self interest which as you might imagine didn't go down well in London, or Manchester, or rural Oxfordshire, or Cardiff or Anglesea.
Very well put!
-
If it is someone not in the cabinet, would appear that Owen Paterson would be best placed.
Not a chance - he has virtually no profile amongst the public, and much of the attention in his time as a minister has been negative. Plus he is also another chip off the same block as Cameron, Osborne, Johnson etc - (albeit slightly second rate) i.e. top public school and Oxbridge. Given his lack of high office I think he'd also be considered to be too old, given that he'd be 63 (I think) in 2020.
I think when people are talking about someone 'not in the cabinet' they mean someone at the early stages of their career and on the way up not someone heading toward the end of their career (which never rose very high) and on the way down.
Personally I think it is likely to be someone currently a minister - possibly Theresa May, although for an outside bet, Joe Johnson (and wouldn't that be fun if it weren't for the he'd be PM!!).
-
Not a chance - he has virtually no profile amongst the public, and much of the attention in his time as a minister has been negative. Plus he is also another chip off the same block as Cameron, Osborne, Johnson etc - (albeit slightly second rate) i.e. top public school and Oxbridge. Given his lack of high office I think he'd also be considered to be too old, given that he'd be 63 (I think) in 2020.
I think when people are talking about someone 'not in the cabinet' they mean someone at the early stages of their career and on the way up not someone heading toward the end of their career (which never rose very high) and on the way down.
Personally I think it is likely to be someone currently a minister - possibly Theresa May, although for an outside bet, Joe Johnson (and wouldn't that be fun if it weren't for the he'd be PM!!).
Yeah, I pretty much agree. It's just that Paterson is surprisingly low odds currently and i'm missing why, so I am wondering whether he is being lined up if there is a in/out slight after the refetendum.
Jo Johnson is an interesting shout. One suspects that there might well be fratricide in that instance.
If Paterson is too old (and I fear that there is a foolish liking for younger leaders), then the same would apply to May.
I am intrigued by Sajid Javid's positioning on Google yesterday. It's a big step if you are Business Secretary to effectively call out the Chancellor, and doing that while taking a populist position which will play with those to the left and certain elements to the right of the Chancellor.
-
I did say extreme right or though extreme left was implied, but hey ho, I'm generalising as you have to do in the real world.
Why would you think that saying extreme right, would imply extreme left? Also There are versions of 'extreme' right that support free immigration - libertarians.
What exactly do you expect me to produce. My claims are:-
1) The SNP are seen as toxic to many of the electorate in the rUK
2) The rise of the SNP lead, in part, to the demise of the Labour party in the 2015 election. Not just by taking seats of Labour in Scotland but because there was a debate over a Lab-SNP coalition, which the Tories used to frighten people to vote Tory.
I don't see you disagreeing with (1) maybe the cause of toxicity but the cause is a secondary issue.
Do you actually think I think that or is it some form of SNP spin that you want to associate me with someone in the LibDem party.
I've disagreed with 1 - as you originally started with a blanket assertion that the SNP were seen only one way. I have actually agreed with 2 (only I suggested the effect was not as wide you stated but relatively focused) but stated in part that was due to the Labour Party, and them not wanting to be seen as anything other than pro austerity.
Why do you think I would using SNP spin? I was merely asking if you were implying that the current situation of a Tory govt was deliberately aimed at by the SNP, which I thought your post seemed to imply.
-
I think that is entirely right, and I think it is perhaps a touch tricky to see this if you are embedded in Scotland rather than rUK.
The mistrust of the SNP isn't inherently their political positioning on the left-right spectrum. Indeed there are plenty in England who are largely aligned in that respect, and lets face it they aren't much different in traditional political terms from Labour. No, the mistrust is that the SNP, don't and don't even pretend to represent the whole of the UK. So their motivation is suspect. I'm sure you can see that.
So in rUK following the referendum the fact that Labour campaigned against the SNP is either largely an irrelevance because rUK people can't vote SNP so don't really care whether they are campaigned against or not, or a mild positive - standing up for the whole of the UK in opposition to a clearly partisan block.
So in rUK the negative effect for Labour wasn't that they'd campaigned against the SNP in the indyref, no it was the fear factor that a hung parliament might lead to the 'clearly partisan' SNP holding a balance of power and only being interested in Scottish self interest which as you might imagine didn't go down well in London, or Manchester, or rural Oxfordshire, or Cardiff or Anglesea.
It would be good if you reread some of this because in your emotional reaction, you aren't able to see that we are talking about two different things. I have agreed that the fear of the SNP amongst a focussed group of voters in rUK had the effect that you suggest. I have been arguing that Labour passively and in some cases actively went along with that. In doing so, they affected their chances in rUK by supporting a fear factor aimed at voting for the Lib Dems and them, and also managed to continue to appear in Scotland as if they were aligning themselves with the Tories again, and losing support there, The dynamics in each situation is different but Labour took the worst of all possible options.
-
If Paterson is too old (and I fear that there is a foolish liking for younger leaders), then the same would apply to May.
It isn't simply the age, but age vs experience. May, although the same age, is Home Secretary and has been since 2010. Paterson has never risen above Environment, and then only for a brief period.
-
The electoral register changes could have impact on Labour, particularly given the link to the boundary changes.
http://tinyurl.com/z6u4pnb
-
It would be good if you reread some of this because in your emotional reaction ...
It is a bit rich talking about an emotional response, coming from you who in your response to Jakswan fails to understand that the SNP were largely seen in a negative manner in rUK. That is clearly true, and not just from those who disagree with their overall politics. The negativity was multifaceted involving:
1. Small 'c' conservatives who passionately want the UK to stay together and therefore saw the SNP as a threat.
2. Hung parliament 'worriers' who saw the presence of the SNP holding the balance of power - a party they couldn't vote either for or against, as dangerous to the interests of people outside of Scotland, on the basis that the SNP are clearly partisan.
3. Centre-left pragmatists who recognised that the rise of the SNP was damaging to the prospects of their being a centre-left government in power after the election, on the basis that the largest party would always get the chance to form the government (and most likely the governing party would get first crack) - so for there to be a centre left government Labour would need to be the largest party in terms of votes.
So perhaps the only people favouring the SNP south of the border were tories (and they weren't going to vote Labour anyhow) who saw their rise (and possibly independence) as a way of ensuring right wing government in rUK. But many of those are also in category 1.
If Labour's approach toward the SNP had been problematic in rUK, then surely it would have been felt most clearly in Wales, with its own nationalist tendencies and greatest levels of 'affection' for the goals of the SNP. But it wasn't. The change in vote share in Wales was broadly in line with the overall change - no evidence of droves of people taking Labour's approach to the SNP negatively.
-
It is a bit rich talking about an emotional response, coming from you who in your response to Jakswan fails to understand that the SNP were largely seen in a negative manner in rUK. That is clearly true, and not just from those who disagree with their overall politics. The negativity was multifaceted involving:
What does 'largely' mean here? I have argued that it was because of a negative perception by some in the rUK of the SNP that Labour (and the Lib Dems) were affected. Further that Labour in indulging the Tories in their portrayal of the SNP helped with that which undermined them and the Lib Dems in rUK as they were still seen as to close to the SNP. It also at the same time undermined them for the OPPOSITE reason in Scotland as they were as a result seen as too close to the Tories.
You keep getting confused with the point that I am arguing that the negative effect on the Labour vote from aligning with the Tory party in terms of votes is in an active sense in Scotland, not the rUK. Since I've written this a number of times now I do think it's your emotional belief in what you think is being said rather than what is actually being said that is getting in the way.
-
What does 'largely' mean here?
Evidence, not emotion NS.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13207254.Poll__59__of_voters_say_Labour_SNP_government_would_be_worst_general_election_outcome/
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/07/07/labour-snp-coalition-poll-general-election-2015_n_7741776.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11379600/English-voters-believe-Labour-SNP-coalition-will-destabilise-Britain.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/generalelection/general-election-2015-prospect-of-labour-snp-coalition-makes-one-in-four-voters-less-likely-to-10208223.html
All these newspaper articles are based on polling.
-
Evidence, not emotion NS.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/13207254.Poll__59__of_voters_say_Labour_SNP_government_would_be_worst_general_election_outcome/
This would be evidence of an effect that I keep on agreeing with? The emotion that I'm pointing out is that you appear unable to read what I'm saying.
So yet again for at least the 5th time - I agree that there was an affect because of some people not wanting the SNP in govt - please reread that until you stop being unable to understand the points being made.
The effect is one that I am suggesting, again for 5th or more time Labour played into. Opinion in polls is moulded by the parties tactics, The Tories wanted to portray the SNP as scary and Labour couldn't avoid going along with that and I would suggest didn't want avoid it.
The numbers in the first poll indicate that it needed a relatively small effect, since all the outcomes had strong disapproval ratings. It needs a 5 point swing to go from the Labour outright to the Labour SNP coalition, and given that any of the coalitions are less popular by between 2.5 and 3,5 swings, the SNP effect itself could be about 3% on that specific subject. I don't see that as 'largely' or something that a blanket generalisation, that was jakswan's position, could be made from.
I have to admit I'm getting somewhat bored with you arguing against a case that isn't being made.
-
The Tories wanted to portray the SNP as scary and Labour couldn't avoid going along with that and I would suggest didn't want avoid it.
But this is a non-sensical argument and one that comes from a fundamental lack of understanding about what was going on in England.
People in England couldn't vote for (or against) the SNP so they were inherently not going to be accountable to that electorate - they were only accountable to the electorate in Scotland. That's a big part of the issue. One of the big reasons why people in rUK were so concerned about the SNP was the fear that they would force through legislation that helped Scotland and hurt England without being accountable to those they hurt.
It didn't need to Tories (or Labour) to ramp up that argument, it was pretty obvious to anyone in a constituency where the minor party in coalition could be on that wasn't even on their ballot paper. Actually I think that Labour played a relatively straight bat with regard to the SNP - neither cosying up too much or demonising too much - certainly that's how it appeared to me from a rUK perspective.
So I don't think there is anything in your 'going along with it' argument - frankly had Labour been more overtly cosying up to the SNP they'd have found the backlash in rUK even greater than it actually was. So perhaps try to back off on the emotion and also try to actually understand what was going on in rUK, rather than trying to shoehorn what was going on in Scotland onto rUK - they are fundamentally different - predominantly because the SNP wasn't on the ballot paper in rUK.
-
Why would you think that saying extreme right, would imply extreme left? Also There are versions of 'extreme' right that support free immigration - libertarians.
My mistake on the extreme left. The political compass libertarians could be left or right.
I've disagreed with 1 - as you originally started with a blanket assertion that the SNP were seen only one way.
Make clear you position, there is no blanket assertion in 1, either disagree with or don't.
I have actually agreed with 2 (only I suggested the effect was not as wide you stated but relatively focused) but stated in part that was due to the Labour Party, and them not wanting to be seen as anything other than pro austerity.
Hurrah we agree to some extent.
Why do you think I would using SNP spin? I was merely asking if you were implying that the current situation of a Tory govt was deliberately aimed at by the SNP, which I thought your post seemed to imply.
It the sort of spin we see from the SNP.
Do you actually think that or is that just like Lib Dem Secretary of State happily spreading errors and lying about it?
What has that got to do with me?
-
Opinion in polls is moulded by the parties tactics, The Tories wanted to portray the SNP as scary and Labour couldn't avoid going along with that and I would suggest didn't want avoid it.
Also:-
1) SNP want independence to have the rUK to be seen a negative light is totally on point for them. I suppose that doesn't match your view that they are the 'good guys' and all the other politicians are the 'bad guys', sounds like your buried in what the SNP are shoveling.
2) Blanket generalisation; opinion is not purely formed by party tactics but I think you know that already.
-
Also:-
1) SNP want independence to have the rUK to be seen a negative light is totally on point for them. I suppose that doesn't match your view that they are the 'good guys' and all the other politicians are the 'bad guys', sounds like your buried in what the SNP are shoveling.
2) Blanket generalisation; opinion is not purely formed by party tactics but I think you know that already.
I'm not saying and haven't said that the SNP are the good guys. It's just your assumptions getting in the way of your comprehension.
-
But this is a non-sensical argument and one that comes from a fundamental lack of understanding about what was going on in England.
People in England couldn't vote for (or against) the SNP so they were inherently not going to be accountable to that electorate - they were only accountable to the electorate in Scotland. That's a big part of the issue. One of the big reasons why people in rUK were so concerned about the SNP was the fear that they would force through legislation that helped Scotland and hurt England without being accountable to those they hurt.
It didn't need to Tories (or Labour) to ramp up that argument, it was pretty obvious to anyone in a constituency where the minor party in coalition could be on that wasn't even on their ballot paper. Actually I think that Labour played a relatively straight bat with regard to the SNP - neither cosying up too much or demonising too much - certainly that's how it appeared to me from a rUK perspective.
So I don't think there is anything in your 'going along with it' argument - frankly had Labour been more overtly cosying up to the SNP they'd have found the backlash in rUK even greater than it actually was. So perhaps try to back off on the emotion and also try to actually understand what was going on in rUK, rather than trying to shoehorn what was going on in Scotland onto rUK - they are fundamentally different - predominantly because the SNP wasn't on the ballot paper in rUK.
This is getting weird, I write something like Labour couldn't avoid going along with the scare tactics because it would have made them look anti austerity and they would have lost more votes in rUK that way and you 'counter' that by agreeing with it. There was a concerted effort by the Tories not just to tap into any worries on the SNP in the crucial numbers that were needed but to exacerbate those.
And as per many posts earlier, what i have been suggesting is not that the Labour party were being hugely devious, but that they had ended up in a position that whatever they did they were screwed. They were tied to a pro austerity push in rUK. They were playing to different electorates and it cost them.
-
This is getting weird, I write something like Labour couldn't avoid going along with the scare tactics because it would have made them look anti austerity and they would have lost more votes in rUK that way and you 'counter' that by agreeing with it. There was a concerted effort by the Tories not just to tap into any worries on the SNP in the crucial numbers that were needed but to exacerbate those.
And as per many posts earlier, what i have been suggesting is not that the Labour party were being hugely devious, but that they had ended up in a position that whatever they did they were screwed. They were tied to a pro austerity push in rUK. They were playing to different electorates and it cost them.
So what exactly would you recommend the Labour party should have done in rUK then NS in the run up to the general election - clearly you see what they did as wrong in relation to their attitude to the SNP. How should they have done this better then - in a manner that would have helped them take those crucial swing seats in England from the Tories that could have made all the difference.
And remember this is about their approach to the SNP, not about their broader political positioning (e.g. their position on the austerity/non austerity spectrum) which had nothing to do with the SNP.
-
I'm not saying and haven't said that the SNP are the good guys. It's just your assumptions getting in the way of your comprehension.
You could have fooled me - that's exactly how your attitude comes across, and it isn't just me who sees that, is it.
-
You could have fooled me - that's exactly how your attitude comes across, and it isn't just me who sees that, is it.
Oh dear, an old ad populum argument instead of any evidence.
-
Well, Sadiq Khan made me laugh with an old tweet: 'I’m the son of a bus driver. I used to love that line… then Sajid fucking Javid came along. You wait for years for the son of a Muslim bus driver to turn up and two come along at once.'
Alert! Somebody has put in too large a link, and the page is all over the place.
-
Just to note were I to be an SNP supporter, it doesn't validate or invalidate my views, as indeed my being resident most of the time in Scotland doesn't validate or invalidate them. You may be remembering that I voted yes in the referendum, but I would point out that doesn't make me an SNP supporter.
-
Oh dear, an old ad populum argument instead of any evidence.
Not really - when the question is whether your posts come across as partisan - i.e. proSNP (good guys) and antiLabour (well and everyone else, the bad guys) - then you have to rely on the impression made on the posters who read your posts. And given that I suspect very few people are reading them (as we don't have a massive community) and several of those who have read them feel they are, then that is a valid approach to adopt.
How else do you suggest you attempt to find out how your posts come across to those reading them?
-
Not really - when the question is whether your posts come across as partisan - i.e. proSNP (good guys) and antiLabour (well and everyone else, the bad guys) - then you have to rely on the impression made on the posters who read your posts. And given that I suspect very few people are reading them (as we don't have a massive community) and several of those who have read them feel they are, then that is a valid approach to adopt.
How else do you suggest you attempt to find out how your posts come across to those reading them?
By what is in them? I am far less anti SNP than you, and so I com across to you as pro SNP. But there isn't anything in these series of posts, I would think suggests that I actually am. Currently I am counting you and jakswan in your folie a deux, who else is in your 'several'?
-
By what is in them? I am far less anti SNP than you, and so I com across to you as pro SNP. But there isn't anything in these series of posts, I would think suggests that I actually am. Currently I am counting you and jakswan in your folie a deux, who else is in your 'several'?
I am honest about it NS - if you read my posts you will be very clear about my views on the petty nationalism of the SNP and also that I am (at least for now) a Labour member.
You on the other hand you aren't even able to come clean about your political affiliation (whether formal member or merely voter):
'Just to note were I to be an SNP supporter, it doesn't validate or invalidate my views, as indeed my being resident most of the time in Scotland doesn't validate or invalidate them. You may be remembering that I voted yes in the referendum, but I would point out that doesn't make me an SNP supporter.'
If you produced any more 'fudge' you'd have to put it on a biscuit finger, cover it in chocolate and go into competition with Twix.
-
Currently I am counting you and jakswan in your folie a deux, who else is in your 'several'?
Given that there are very few people involved in this thread then I'd suggest that is quite significant.
But maybe we should also ask Jack Knave and Rhiannon (also fairly involved in the discussions) whether thy think your posts imply you are proSNP and antiLabour. Any thoughts the two of you?
-
Given that there are very few people involved in this thread then I'd suggest that is quite significant.
But maybe we should also ask Jack Knave and Rhiannon (also fairly involved in the discussions) whether thy think your posts imply you are proSNP and antiLabour. Any thoughts the two of you?
So still no actual evidence?
-
So still no actual evidence?
Yes there is evidence - that jaks and I (at the least) have that impression.
-
I am honest about it NS - if you read my posts you will be very clear about my views on the petty nationalism of the SNP and also that I am (at least for now) a Labour member.
You on the other hand you aren't even able to come clean about your political affiliation (whether formal member or merely voter):
'Just to note were I to be an SNP supporter, it doesn't validate or invalidate my views, as indeed my being resident most of the time in Scotland doesn't validate or invalidate them. You may be remembering that I voted yes in the referendum, but I would point out that doesn't make me an SNP supporter.'
If you produced any more 'fudge' you'd have to put it on a biscuit finger, cover it in chocolate and go into competition with Twix.
Surely it would be in competition with 'Fudge' in that case?
On the substantive point, don't have any current affiliation. I doubt that is that unusual. That you have this in built assumption that someone must have and be arguing from that is part of your issue with assuming that everyone has to be a emotionally involved as you
-
Yes there is evidence - that jaks and I (at the least) have that impression.
There is evidence that you have that impression, I agree. Not that you are right to do so.
-
Surely it would be in competition with 'Fudge' in that case?
No fudge from me - I've always been very clear about my political views and affiliations - namely a (for now) Labour member, although very unhappy with Corbyn, and someone who loathes the petty nationalism espoused by the SNP.
Clear enough? Unlike:
'Just to note were I to be an SNP supporter, it doesn't validate or invalidate my views, as indeed my being resident most of the time in Scotland doesn't validate or invalidate them. You may be remembering that I voted yes in the referendum, but I would point out that doesn't make me an SNP supporter.'
So perhaps you'd like to be a bit clearer NS - simple question, are you and SNP supporter or perhaps even a member.
-
No fudge from me - I've always been very clear about my political views and affiliations - namely a (for now) Labour member, although very unhappy with Corbyn, and someone who loathes the petty nationalism espoused by the SNP.
Clear enough? Unlike:
'Just to note were I to be an SNP supporter, it doesn't validate or invalidate my views, as indeed my being resident most of the time in Scotland doesn't validate or invalidate them. You may be remembering that I voted yes in the referendum, but I would point out that doesn't make me an SNP supporter.'
So perhaps you'd like to be a bit clearer NS - simple question, are you and SNP supporter or perhaps even a member.
Why did you edit out the clear statement that I don't have any current affiliation (which would rule out being a member)?
That's the sort of approach I would expect from Vlad.
-
Unlikely to be someone not in the cabinet, I notice that Sajid Javid effectively underlining his candidacy by his comments on Google, and his odds have come down considerably. Also moving in is Stephen Crabb and Priti Patel. Interesting also to note the reversals to policies being pushed by Michael Gove after Chris Grayling's tenure.
The commentator did seem to imply that it would be from the backbenches.
Wouldn't that be a lovely conjunction of people positioning themselves for the leadership bid at the same time fighting over the EU. Especially if it looks like Cameron is going to lose the referendum as this would put pressure on him to step down early, if he did actually fail to keep us in the EU.
-
Jo Johnson is an interesting shout. One suspects that there might well be fratricide in that instance.
I am intrigued by Sajid Javid's positioning on Google yesterday. It's a big step if you are Business Secretary to effectively call out the Chancellor, and doing that while taking a populist position which will play with those to the left and certain elements to the right of the Chancellor.
On Javid I agree. I had to listen to it again to make sure I hadn't misheard it. But I think Osborne has made too many misjudgements on the feelings of the people and will now get some stick for it.
I find Joe Johnson a bit of a soulless fellow. I can't image him catching the peoples imagination.
-
Why did you edit out the clear statement that I don't have any current affiliation (which would rule out being a member)?
That's the sort of approach I would expect from Vlad.
Where - I posted reply 139 in its entirety - no editing whatsoever.
To reiterate the whole of reply 139 is:
'Just to note were I to be an SNP supporter, it doesn't validate or invalidate my views, as indeed my being resident most of the time in Scotland doesn't validate or invalidate them. You may be remembering that I voted yes in the referendum, but I would point out that doesn't make me an SNP supporter.'
In full - where exactly have you made a clear statement that you had no affiliation - I can't see one.
-
On Javid I agree. I had to listen to it again to make sure I hadn't misheard it. But I think Osborne has made too many misjudgements on the feelings of the people and will now get some stick for it.
I find Joe Johnson a bit of a soulless fellow. I can't image him catching the peoples imagination.
If the referendum goes to stay in, and the economy is in at all decent shape, Osborne will be in a very strong position. If the referendum is for out, you have to think that someone who campaigned for it will have a good chance. I suspect that is part of Paterson's showing.
If it's out anyone of the more known figures who either manages ambivalence or jumps convincingly will be well placed.
-
The commentator did seem to imply that it would be from the backbenches.
Wouldn't that be a lovely conjunction of people positioning themselves for the leadership bid at the same time fighting over the EU. Especially if it looks like Cameron is going to lose the referendum as this would put pressure on him to step down early, if he did actually fail to keep us in the EU.
I think were he to lose the referendum then he'd have to go - his position would be pretty untenable. But if that happened it wouldn't make much sense to replace him with anyone other than a eurosceptic as otherwise they'd be on the losing side too. So who are the credible and high profile eurosceptics? Hmm not sure. Again I wonder about Theresa May - were she to side with the 'leave' campaign and they won she'd surely be in poll position for a leadership bid.
-
Where - I posted reply 139 in its entirety - no editing whatsoever.
To reiterate the whole of reply 139 is:
'Just to note were I to be an SNP supporter, it doesn't validate or invalidate my views, as indeed my being resident most of the time in Scotland doesn't validate or invalidate them. You may be remembering that I voted yes in the referendum, but I would point out that doesn't make me an SNP supporter.'
In full - where exactly have you made a clear statement that you had no affiliation - I can't see one.
Post 146 which is the one with the comment on your fudge line which you quote in 148, and then insert 139 while leaving out the rest of 146.
-
If the referendum goes to stay in, and the economy is in at all decent shape, Osborne will be in a very strong position. If the referendum is for out, you have to think that someone who campaigned for it will have a good chance. I suspect that is part of Paterson's showing.
If it's out anyone of the more known figures who either manages ambivalence or jumps convincingly will be well placed.
I think you have an assumption here for the In success that this will shut people up but I don't think it will. I also think Osborne isn't looking so good with the voters as he keeps gaffing and making misjudgements and those voting for their next leader may get some unsavoury feedback about him.
-
Post 146 which is the one with the comment on your fudge line which you quote in 148, and then insert 139 while leaving out the rest of 146.
Fair enough although, still rather vague - you could of course have said 'I am not currently, nor have been recently a member of the SNP' - that would have been clear.
But you are still fudging on being a supporter, which was the major point. Are you or aren't you a supporter of the SNP - not a hard question to answer I'd have thought.
-
I think you have an assumption here for the In success that this will shut people up but I don't think it will. I also think Osborne isn't looking so good with the voters as he keeps gaffing and making misjudgements and those voting for their next leader may get some unsavoury feedback about him.
No, I don't think it will shut people up but I think.it will make it much harder to lead a party if one half of that party has been on the winning side.
I think a lot of the gaffs of Osborne are 'inside the beltway' politics and if you are Chancellor of 8 or so years and the economy is doing well, it's an easy sell. That said I am not convinced the economy will be in good shape
-
Fair enough although, still rather vague - you could of course have said 'I am not currently, nor have been recently a member of the SNP' - that would have been clear.
But you are still fudging on being a supporter, which was the major point. Are you or aren't you a supporter of the SNP - not a hard question to answer I'd have thought.
So no apology for the quote mining?
As to the major point, I think rather that is your assumption with no evidence.
-
I'm not saying and haven't said that the SNP are the good guys. It's just your assumptions getting in the way of your comprehension.
So if:-
"Opinion in polls is moulded by the parties tactics, The Tories wanted to portray the SNP as scary and Labour couldn't avoid going along with that and I would suggest didn't want avoid it. "
You will agree then that SNP tactics are to mould opinion polls in the rUK as I suggested.
I think an element of opinion polls are moulded by politicians tactics. All good politicians use tactics, and the SNP have some brilliant politicians, so brilliant some commentators seem blind to their tactics, I'm glad you are not one of them.
-
So if:-
"Opinion in polls is moulded by the parties tactics, The Tories wanted to portray the SNP as scary and Labour couldn't avoid going along with that and I would suggest didn't want avoid it. "
You will agree then that SNP tactics are to mould opinion polls in the rUK as I suggested.
I think an element of opinion polls are moulded by politicians tactics. All good politicians use tactics, and the SNP have some brilliant politicians, so brilliant some commentators seem blind to their tactics, I'm glad you are not one of them.
I think the SNP concentrated their tactics on Scotland. I think Nicola Sturgeon made a real effort in rUK to appear conciliatory and argue that any coalition would look at the interests of the UK as a whole - that's why she repeatedly said that. .
I think the SNP have some good politicians and some that have been lucky as well. I think they have some awful ones as well. I don't hold them in the awe you seem to where you seem to think they are campaigning for some hugely double bluff other than what they say.
-
I think the SNP concentrated their tactics on Scotland. I think Nicola Sturgeon made a real effort in rUK to appear conciliatory and argue that any coalition would look at the interests of the UK as a whole - that's why she repeatedly said that. .
I think the SNP have some good politicians and some that have been lucky as well. I think they have some awful ones as well. I don't hold them in the awe you seem to where you seem to think they are campaigning for some hugely double bluff other than what they say.
Never claimed they were campaigning for some huge double bluff, you've been reading too much Vlad. I'm not in awe and I never claimed that all of them were brilliant.
Why on earth would Sturgeon want to appear conciliatory, Scotland voting en masse for her and much of the rUK electorate seeing her as toxic plays exactly to her agenda for an independent Scotland.
There is some inconsistency in your position, you claim opinion polls are dictated by politicians tactics, yet claim that a politician who you appear to have supported has tactics that are at odds with the opinion polls.
-
Never claimed they were campaigning for some huge double bluff, you've been reading too much Vlad. I'm not in awe and I never claimed that all of them were brilliant.
Why on earth would Sturgeon want to appear conciliatory, Scotland voting en masse for her and much of the rUK electorate seeing her as toxic plays exactly to her agenda for an independent Scotland.
There is some inconsistency in your position, you claim opinion polls are dictated by politicians tactics, yet claim that a politician who you appear to have supported has tactics that are at odds with the opinion polls.
Don;t remember saying 'dictated' but anyway, I have no idea why you are asking me why Nicola Sturgeon's rhetoric would be conciliatory, the point is that it was. It stressed that it would look to be a coalition in everyone's interests. That's why I am wondering about double bluff because you seem to be suggesting that the aim was something that was opposite opposite the rhetoric.
-
Article on the difficulties for Labour, leaving aside anything on internal splits in 2020
http://labourlist.org/2016/02/labour-must-win-england-with-a-bigger-swing-than-1997-to-win-power/
-
So no apology for the quote mining?
Nope - because I wasn't quote mining.
And actually the second part of reply 146 (the bit I chose not to quote in my response) doesn't actually counter my view on your statements being a fudge.
So in reply 142 I very clearly asked you to 'come clean about your political affiliation (whether formal member or merely voter)' - not the bit in brackets, in other words not just whether you were a member but also a voter.
Yet in your responses you remain evasive and further in 149 imply that in talking about affiliation you are really talking about membership. So your response remains a fudge as you haven't clarified the issue of which party you voted for. If you are not politically affiliated (whether formal member or merely voter) that would imply you are a non voter - is that correct, did you really not vote in the 2015 General Election, are you really planning not to vote in May. Somehow that doesn't seem very credible to me, particularly as you are clearly a voter, having told us you voted 'yes' in the referendum.
So I suggest you either put up (tell us whether you have voted SNP in the past and/or plan to in the future, plus whether you have previously been a member and/or plan to be in the future - noting again the evasiveness of the word 'current' in your reply), or shut up (which is clearly your right) - but if so then stop having a go at someone who has been completely honest about their affiliation which you remain evasive with your answers clearly a fudge.
As to the major point, I think rather that is your assumption with no evidence.
But isn't that the whole point - the only way I can gain the evidence about your affiliations (membership and/or voting or supporting) is from you - and that is what I am asking you to confirm and deny, and to do so in a manner which is clear and unequivocal. But that is something you seem unable or unwilling to do, for reasons that I am struggling to understand.
-
So what exactly would you recommend the Labour party should have done in rUK then NS in the run up to the general election - clearly you see what they did as wrong in relation to their attitude to the SNP. How should they have done this better then - in a manner that would have helped them take those crucial swing seats in England from the Tories that could have made all the difference.
And remember this is about their approach to the SNP, not about their broader political positioning (e.g. their position on the austerity/non austerity spectrum) which had nothing to do with the SNP.
Reposting the above NS - as you don't seem to have replied.
So in your infinite wisdom NS what should the Labour party have done in rUK in the run up to the general election in relation to their attitude to the SNP and how would that have helped them win more of those crucial Tory/Labour marginal seats in England.
-
Don;t remember saying 'dictated' but anyway,
I suspect pedantry, I'm not quoting you directly if you feel I'm misrepresenting you in anyway please highlight where and I'll apologise.
I have no idea why you are asking me why Nicola Sturgeon's rhetoric would be conciliatory, the point is that it was. It stressed that it would look to be a coalition in everyone's interests. That's why I am wondering about double bluff because you seem to be suggesting that the aim was something that was opposite opposite the rhetoric.
Opinion polls show that it didn't come across as conciliatory. Farage tries to be conciliatory towards migrants claiming he is not biased towards non-eu migrants, few believe him, few believe Sturgeon.
-
I see Labour are proposing to increase taxes to protect Education in Scotland with LibDem supporting, the Tories / SNP are on the same side. :)
SNP will spin it left wing but the policy is right wing. :)
-
Dear Jakswan,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-35461968
Thank you, if you want quality you need to be prepared to pay for it, trouble is, the people we trust to spend our taxes wisely.
Gonnagle.
-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-35461968
Thank you, if you want quality you need to be prepared to pay for it, trouble is, the people we trust to spend our taxes wisely.
Are you saying 'Ah well'?
I seem to recall you mentioning that earlier in the thread. :)
-
Dear Jakswan,
I hope I am not a "ah well" person or a "who cares" type but I do find it refreshing that someone is talking about raising taxes, I don't like the talk of "sticking it to the rich" although they must be shown to pay their fair share.
On the other hand, the idiots who spend our taxes, no use increasing taxes if it is just going to be spent unwisely.
I work in the NHS and the waste I see is phenomenal, epic, astronomical, not to mention the pilfering, but that is another story for another day.
Gonnagle.
-
I hope I am not a "ah well" person or a "who cares" type but I do find it refreshing that someone is talking about raising taxes, I don't like the talk of "sticking it to the rich" although they must be shown to pay their fair share.
On the other hand, the idiots who spend our taxes, no use increasing taxes if it is just going to be spent unwisely.
I work in the NHS and the waste I see is phenomenal, epic, astronomical, not to mention the pilfering, but that is another story for another day.
The devolved NHS run by the the SNP? How about you become a whistle blower?
-
Reposting the above NS - as you don't seem to have replied.
So in your infinite wisdom NS what should the Labour party have done in rUK in the run up to the general election in relation to their attitude to the SNP and how would that have helped them win more of those crucial Tory/Labour marginal seats in England.
Bump for NS.
-
The question are labour dead in the water ---- yes death set in some time ago.
~TW~
-
Who is truer to the political ideals and principles that the Labour Party* was founded upon, Corbyn or the rabble of Tory-lite malcontents against him who don't even belong in the party in the first place? There's no "tearing apart," only the disaffection of clueless Thatcherites terminally confused about which party they should be in.
* ("I joined the Labour Party, not the New Labour Party." - Tony Benn).
You can applaud his ideals whilst also being critical of his leadership capabilities. It's obvious that those are sadly lacking.
-
Interesting analysis
http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2016/03/13/the-conservatives-have-been-the-biggest-borrowers-over-the-last-70-years/
-
Interesting analysis
http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2016/03/13/the-conservatives-have-been-the-biggest-borrowers-over-the-last-70-years/
LOL 'we'll on borrow to invest' and they will then spin invest to cover education, NHS, etc.
Not accurate analysis, you would have to break down New Labour, who had a good record on borrowing but got caught out at the end. Old Labour not so much.
-
I'm seeing news that Vicky Kirby is back, she was kicked out of Labour after tweeting that Hitler was a Zionist God.
This and Livingston latest stunt with regard to Dan Jarvis underlines the hard left can be as horrible as the hard right.
-
Not to mention that whining trouble maker Mark Serwotka. He and his chums turned the Public & Commercial Services Union into a bastion of the hard left, make no mistake they will happily apply the same tactics with the Labour Party.
-
LOL 'we'll on borrow to invest' and they will then spin invest to cover education, NHS, etc.
Not accurate analysis, you would have to break down New Labour, who had a good record on borrowing but got caught out at the end. Old Labour not so much.
Your first line is a non sequitur to the methodology in the paper. You need to expand as it isn't saying anything about reasons for borrowing in the paper just the amount itself.
Second point, choosing different selections of time does not making analysis inaccurate, and the paper itself seek to give the Tories a break by removing the last six years and it still doesn't work out for them.
-
Your first line is a non sequitur to the methodology in the paper. You need to expand as it isn't saying anything about reasons for borrowing in the paper just the amount itself.
I was referring to Shadow Chancellor speech on fiscal responsibility, which was political posturing, a lot of rhetoric and no substance.
Second point, choosing different selections of time does not making analysis inaccurate, and the paper itself seek to give the Tories a break by removing the last six years and it still doesn't work out for them.
The point your article attempts to make is that we should believe a Corbyn Labour Gvt. would deal with the deficit. I don't believe that, I listened to the Shadow Chancellor on Marr and I found him unconvincing.
I watched on Seema Malhotra on Sunday Politics and her evasion almost matched the legendary Micheal Howard - Paxman interview.
-
I was referring to Shadow Chancellor speech on fiscal responsibility, which was political posturing, a lot of rhetoric and no substance.
The point your article attempts to make is that we should believe a Corbyn Labour Gvt. would deal with the deficit. I don't believe that, I listened to the Shadow Chancellor on Marr and I found him unconvincing.
I watched on Seema Malhotra on Sunday Politics and her evasion almost matched the legendary Micheal Howard - Paxman interview.
So the actual analysis is fine, and when you called it inaccurate you were just being unclear because you are having an argument that isn't been made by me or the person who did the blog.
-
Abstinence will.not make the heart fonder either
https://www.politicshome.com/home-affairs/articles/story/labour-abstain-investigatory-powers-bill-andy-burnham
-
Not to mention that whining trouble maker Mark Serwotka. He and his chums turned the Public & Commercial Services Union into a bastion of the hard left, make no mistake they will happily apply the same tactics with the Labour Party.
Your party is in meltdown Humph.
-
I was referring to Shadow Chancellor speech on fiscal responsibility, which was political posturing, a lot of rhetoric and no substance.
The point your article attempts to make is that we should believe a Corbyn Labour Gvt. would deal with the deficit. I don't believe that, I listened to the Shadow Chancellor on Marr and I found him unconvincing.
I watched on Seema Malhotra on Sunday Politics and her evasion almost matched the legendary Micheal Howard - Paxman interview.
Your party is in meltdown Jak and has just degenerated into a cock comparison.
-
Your party is in meltdown Jak and has just degenerated into a cock comparison.
My party was the LibDems but afraid we have different views on the EU. Currently I'm a free agent.
-
My party was the LibDems but afraid we have different views on the EU. Currently I'm a free agent.
Similar here although we had different views on SSM.
-
So the actual analysis is fine, and when you called it inaccurate you were just being unclear because you are having an argument that isn't been made by me or the person who did the blog.
From the blog "it was known that Labour always borrowed more than the Conservatives and that was why the electorate could not trust them with the economy. I knew that evidence I had prepared a year ago did not support that view in recent years (post 1997)"
The purpose of the article, I assumed, was intended to refute the notion that Labour cannot be trusted in future with the economy, it mentions John McDonnell’s new fiscal rule.
If that isn't the conclusion you'd like us to draw from that article in a thread about Labour what other reason did you have for posting it.
I stand corrected the analysis isn't flawed the conclusion is; prior to 1997 the economy was in a regular boom and bust cycle. As I recall Brown became convinced that this cycle was over and allowed the deficit to grow from 2002 to 2008.
Eventually in the crash we were staring at 10% deficit relative to GDP, the highest is has ever been in modern times.
So the premise of the article 'Labour always borrowed more than the Conservatives and that was why the electorate could not trust them with the economy' isn't true, I think the electorate didn't Miliband with the economy because he was seen as weak on fixing the deficit.
I think the electorate would not trust Corbyn on the economy because of his ideology.
-
My party was the LibDems but afraid we have different views on the EU. Currently I'm a free agent.
Wow!!!
How many named or well known LibDems are for Leave? I can't think of any.
Have you had a word with the Queen yet?
-
Interesting
http://evolvepolitics.com/massive-boost-corbyn-labour-lead-tories-latest-yougov-poll/
-
Calling it a massive boost for Corbyn is barmy. You would expect Labour to move up, considering the Tory turmoil over the EU, plus more of Osborne's creative accounting. But Miliband got good polls, I think. But I guess that the Blairites will be thrawn.
-
Calling it a massive boost for Corbyn is barmy. You would expect Labour to move up, considering the Tory turmoil over the EU, plus more of Osborne's creative accounting. But Miliband got good polls, I think. But I guess that the Blairites will be thrawn.
Indeed - at this stage in the parliament you would expect the opposition to have a sizeable and consistent lead if they are to have a reasonable prospect of winning the next general election.
-
But I think it may inhibit any plotting against Corbyn, if there is such a thing. I thought he gave a good speech on the budget, quite fiery. But then Osborne currently is an open goal.
-
Indeed - at this stage in the parliament you would expect the opposition to have a sizeable and consistent lead if they are to have a reasonable prospect of winning the next general election.
10 Months into a 5 year parliament? That would posit that to have a reasonable prospect of winning an opposition would have to move into a sizeable lead after about 6 months of a parliament? I would have thought that it generally takes about a year to make up the gap that the actual election shows, never mind move into a substantial lead.
-
I think there were some pundits, usually right-wing Labour, predicting that Labour would sink to the 20s in the polls under Corbyn. Of course, they may still do that, but I thought that the Oldham by-election showed that people will vote Labour under Corbyn. But then the Tories resemble a drunken brothel at the moment, all cocks going nowhere, so they are a soft target.
-
I think there were some pundits, usually right-wing Labour, predicting that Labour would sink to the 20s in the polls under Corbyn. Of course, they may still do that
They already have - 4 of the last 16 polls have had Labour in the 20s with another 5 having them on just 30. And they have been regularly polling below 30 since Corbyn became leader.
-
They already have - 4 of the last 16 polls have had Labour in the 20s with another 5 having them on just 30. And they have been regularly polling below 30 since Corbyn became leader.
Which is astonishing when you look at what this Conservative government is doing to the educational system and the NHS.
-
Which is astonishing when you look at what this Conservative government is doing to the educational system and the NHS.
They aren't doing to great either - but just shows you how useless Corbyn is as leader of the opposition.
-
Are the Tories dead in the water? Which fish looks more alive? or will do in 2020, as they fight themselves into a cloud of dust.
-
Which is astonishing when you look at what this Conservative government is doing to the educational system and the NHS.
We lost a lot when the libdems got slaughtered in the election. Labour score the open goals but once a follow up question is asked 'what would you do' they spend the next ten minutes avoiding the question.
-
Which is astonishing when you look at what this Conservative government is doing to the educational system and the NHS.
The problem in a sense is that both the NHS and the education system are somewhere in the '90s, perhaps even the '80s. Neither of them can be allowed to just carry on as they are, because they will collaps under the weight of their respective issues. For instance, we need to move away from a 2-stream NHS/Social care system to an integrated system. Whether we can say that the Tory - let alone the Coalition - administration has been/was working towards this is open to debate.
Similarly, the education system. The last 25 years has seen a huge development in learning platforms, learning difficulty understandings, potential subjects for study, etc.; yet the system hasn't kept up with these developments.
Not sure that forcing all schools to become academies is going to help, but even then that seems to be trying to answer yesterday's questions.
-
We lost a lot when the libdems got slaughtered in the election. Labour score the open goals but once a follow up question is asked 'what would you do' they spend the next ten minutes avoiding the question.
We know what they will do they just don't want to say it because it will spook the voters. They are playing the long game of course.
-
Not sure that forcing all schools to become academies is going to help, but even then that seems to be trying to answer yesterday's questions.
That smells of privatisation. The idea here is that failing schools get taken over by good schools; all rated by the government - who are TOTALLY fair and honest. And who's going to run the 'good' schools? Cameron's elitist friends?
-
We lost a lot when the libdems got slaughtered in the election.
I'm in total agreement. People come down hard on the Lib Dems but now that we see the face of an unrestrained Tory government, it's pretty obvious they did a very good job for five years.
-
I'm in total agreement. People come down hard on the Lib Dems but now that we see the face of an unrestrained Tory government, it's pretty obvious they did a very good job for five years.
I've heard Cameron wanted even harder cuts on the PIP than what was actually put in the budget.