Labour Leadership

[Jah Lush]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Who the hell is Mark Barton?

>

> (in reference to Jah's pic)

Here you go Loz.

http://www.bloomberg.com/personalities/mark_barton/

[Loz]

Jah Lush Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Loz Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Who the hell is Mark Barton?

> >

> > (in reference to Jah's pic)

>

> Here you go Loz.

>

> http://www.bloomberg.com/personalities/mark_barton

Well, that makes more sense. Google 'Mark Barton' and you find a "spree killer from Stockbridge, Georgia, USA".

[Louisa]

I just think it's sour grapes from the urban intelligentsia. New Labour had its chance, it is now repeating the same mantra as in 1997 (which is no longer relevant post 2008). Corbyn offers (to me anyway) a centre left alternative. The rest of them offer Tory light. End of.

Louisa.

[DaveR]

"Perhaps they are actually vaguely representative of the majority of people who might vote in general elections."

Didn't we just have one of those? Voted in a Conservative government IIRC

[Earl Aelfheah]

Thanks Loz. I think that's a bit of a careless use of word on Corbyn's part, but I think it's pretty clear when read in context that he isn't talking about a planned economy in the sense of a centrally controlled communist state (as some have suggested, rather dramatically). He says in the next sentence that '....the strongest lesson to learn from all of this is the need for greater unionisation in the private sector'. If you read what he has said more recently regarding the economy, I don't think any of it could be portrayed as 'extremism' albiet that one may disagree. It helps no one to paint him as dangerous communist, it's clearly ridiculous. The press did the same with Brown and 'Red Ed' and it just brings down the level of debate IMO.

Basically, anyone who believes that there may possibly be a role for state ownership / management of some essential services seems to be considered looney, or dogged. Thinking that there is no one solution for all problems (lightly regulated market), is the exact opposite of dogged- it's believing in examining all possible options and deciding on which is likely to best deliver the outcomes we might want.

[david_carnell]

DaveR Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> "Perhaps they are actually vaguely representative

> of the majority of people who might vote in

> general elections."

>

> Didn't we just have one of those? Voted in a

> Conservative government IIRC

And so the solution is to simply ape the Tories and hope a few don't notice next time they tick a box?

Labour have lost two elections on a pro-austerity, centre right platform. For all the media loved to brand him as "Red Ed", the idea of Miliband being some sort of dangerous socialist would be comical anywhere but Britain. Most of his policies would be something the CDU in Germany would happily support. So, the question then becomes what next? More of the same? More Tory-lite but with someone more photogenic? How thoroughly depressing.

Labour don't need to win back everyone who voted Tory. Win over some Green, some UKIP, some SNP and some Tory. I think Corbyn could actually do that.

Perhaps I'm being naive but if Liz Kendall is the answer, I don't even want to listen to the question.

[Otta]

david_carnell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> DaveR Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > "Perhaps they are actually vaguely

> representative

> > of the majority of people who might vote in

> > general elections."

> >

> > Didn't we just have one of those? Voted in a

> > Conservative government IIRC

>

> And so the solution is to simply ape the Tories

> and hope a few don't notice next time they tick a

> box?

>

> Labour have lost two elections on a pro-austerity,

> centre right platform. For all the media loved to

> brand him as "Red Ed", the idea of Miliband being

> some sort of dangerous socialist would be comical

> anywhere but Britain. Most of his policies would

> be something the CDU in Germany would happily

> support. So, the question then becomes what next?

> More of the same? More Tory-lite but with someone

> more photogenic? How thoroughly depressing.

>

> Labour don't need to win back everyone who voted

> Tory. Win over some Green, some UKIP, some SNP and

> some Tory. I think Corbyn could actually do that.

>

> Perhaps I'm being naive but if Liz Kendall is the

> answer, I don't even want to listen to the

> question.

What he said. Especially the last bit.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Yes, well said David_carnell.

[Jeremy]

For me Ed Miliband was a modern Social Democrat, progressive but also pragmatic and fiscally responsible. A moderate centrist compared to the right-of-centre Blair. I quite liked him. Unfortunately he suffered slightly on the personality front.

[Earl Aelfheah]

david_carnell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Labour don't need to win back everyone who voted

> Tory. Win over some Green, some UKIP, some SNP and

> some Tory.

And some of those who haven't voted before, or have stopped voting (of which there are a lot). Labour are currently attracting huge numbers of new members, lot's of them young voters.

[david_carnell]

Not that many people actually voted Tory - either absolutely or as a share of the vote.

Considering how many seats they won, it was actually weird. Their share of the vote increased by just 0.8% from 2010. Labour's went up 1.5% and yet they lost seats. Electoral math is weird. And I'm not suggesting they don't have a mandate just that it's a much more complicated psephological picture than many paint it to be.

[david_carnell]

Further analysis here:

https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3575/How-Britain-voted-in-2015.aspx?view=wide

I wonder if being 66 (or 71 in 2020) will help Corbyn appeal to that demographic - something Labour have failed to do effectively. Pensions are like Fort Knox under the Tories and it shows in the voter pattern.

[DaveR]

Is it me, or is this thread going round in circles:

"It is hilarious watching London lefties trying to persuade themselves that the General Election we had just a few weeks ago didn't really happen, and that there are 'huge swathes' of voters dying for a proper socialist party leader to vote for. And talk of 'establishment coups'. Priceless.

Can I give everybody a quick reality check. Outside London, Labour took precisely one seat from the Tories in the whole of the South of England. And that was in Hove, which is as close to a 'London' seat outside the city itself as you can get. And Labour lost zero seats to UKIP, even indirectly. If the Labour Party has any aspirations to govern again, they need to throw Corbyn under the proverbial bus. Today."

[david_carnell]

DaveR Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> And Labour lost zero seats to UKIP, even

> indirectly.

Really? I'd be surprised if you looked at combined UKIP-Labour votes in many constituencies that it wouldn't add up to more than the Cons vote.

Now, I'm not suggesting that it's feasible to covert every UKIP voter but not all are Captain Bluster down in Eastbourne retirement villages. Many are northern, working class voters that the "win Surbiton at all costs" Labour Party have forgotten about.

[Loz]

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Thanks Loz. I think that's a bit of a careless use of word on Corbyn's part, but I think it's pretty

> clear when read in context that he isn't talking about a planned economy in the sense of a

> centrally controlled communist state (as some have suggested, rather dramatically). He says in the

> next sentence that '....the strongest lesson to learn from all of this is the need for greater

> unionisation in the private sector'. If you read what he has said more recently regarding the

> economy, I don't think any of it could be portrayed as 'extremism' albiet that one may

> disagree. It helps no one to paint him as dangerous communist, it's clearly ridiculous. The

> press did the same with Brown and 'Red Ed' and it just brings down the level of debate IMO.

>

> Basically, anyone who believes that there may possibly be a role for state ownership /

> management of some essential services seems to be considered looney, or dogged. Thinking that there

> is no one solution for all problems (lightly regulated market), is the exact opposite of

> dogged- it's believing in examining all possible options and deciding on which is likely to best

> deliver the outcomes we might want.

I don't necessarily believe Corbyn is that far down the road of the planned economy - it's just you set a challenge and I thought I'd have a crack at it!

The most worrying thing about Corbyn I've read is his intention to print money to finance the state. That is, frankly, just terrifying. Previously, I've considered him a charming but basically harmless old-school lefty whose biggest danger was splitting the Labour Party. But that is a seriously dangerous approach. And it's the cornerstone of his economic policy.

[DaveR]

"Many are northern, working class voters that the "win Surbiton at all costs" Labour Party have forgotten about."

Agreed - and they are in seats that Labour already hold. Anybody in the Labour Party who thinks it can win an election without winning over Tory voters in Tory seats is kidding themselves. Look at the seats in Southern England and the 'posh' bits of the Midlands that Labour under Blair won in 1997 and continued to hold in 2005. Many of them went Tory or Lib Dem in 2010 and are now overwhelmingly Tory. How many of them will a Labour Party led by J Corbyn win? Zero, I predict.

[????]

No political points here or indeed any of my views but just some challenges that Corybyn would need to overcome if he's elected as leader and sticks to his principles and policies and then is putting together a manifesto for 2020 - i would be interested in hearing how people think he will overcome these.

1) Re-Nationalisation of rail/utilities/Royal Mail

On paper (and in surveys) pretty popular. In reality will need to be paid for as I'm presuming he's not planning a 1920 Soviet Style confiscation of capitalist assetts. There come's the first test when tax payers are put with a bill for this policy, the onpaper support will collapse a fair bit I think. He's right to be asked (and her will be) how he's going to fund renationalising

2) Immigration

Rightly or wrongly this is a big issue for many working class voters. Labour have always been uncomfortable with this reality and Corybyn does strike me as more principled than most, so I can't see him bending on this. So how he's going to persuade those that voted UKIP to come back. I know he'tll try an argue his well meaning case and admirable of him but in reality this is a massive challenge. I see Farage is delighted by Corybyn in today's news...I think I know why

3) Defence

Not all Labour Party voters (or members) are of the CND/bamb the bomb inclination. Many highy skilled working class jobs depend on defence in some key constituencies, the armed forces are by and large working class plus many of the population are just not that at ease at all with slashing the defence budget

4) Welfare

Unplatable as it is - many people support a curb in welfare payments. Again, you can make a moral argument against that but it's a tough one. As far as I can see Corybn will increase benefits and cewrtainly restore any cuts

5) 'Austerity'

As the last election shows and even the words of 'tory lites' (ie all the sane candidates for Labour Leadership), in reality many people, including non-tories, understand that we can't just go on living beyond our means. To hit the increases in spending he is propisng will require significant tax increases taht will hit most tax payers. The 1%, fook the 10%, can't fund this one. The Tax Avoidance thing is a bit of 'money tree' economics too - they won't the ?54bn...the tories themselves are trying to close this too as were Labour before good rheteric doesn't deliver (ask Hollande). I'm not convinced most or even workers want more tax - despite the cliams...

6) Labour insurgency

This will come. He'll have as many internal critics as from the tories et al.

6) Personal attacks

If he gets elected, oh boy will they come. He's going to have to address - support for terrorism; support for paedos; no experience of govt;white middle-class, quite old, male from the London

7) Experience

He has none in govt (or shadow govt). Againg, "Do you want this man as your PM?" will be everywhere approaching 2020

[*Bob*]

I've not been watching or listening much over the last few weeks, but it seems like every time I have been - Jermy Corbyn is most notably 'not' on the telly or the radio, but the telly and radio (and his opponents) are talking about nothing but Jeremy Corbyn.

I wonder how many of his new converts have actually seen him or heard him speak.

[*Bob*]

'Jermy'

[*Bob*]

Do we have proof he actually exists?

[Earl Aelfheah]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I don't necessarily believe Corbyn is that far

> down the road of the planned economy - it's just

> you set a challenge and I thought I'd have a crack

> at it!

Fair enough, you did a good job! Like I say, it's pretty careless language on Corbyn's part.

> The most worrying thing about Corbyn I've read is

> his intention to print money to finance the state.

> That is, frankly, just terrifying. Previously,

> I've considered him a charming but basically

> harmless old-school lefty whose biggest danger was

> splitting the Labour Party. But that is a

> seriously dangerous approach. And it's the

> cornerstone of his economic policy.

Yeah, I must admit that's a bit worrying. That said, there is an argument that QE could have been directed in different ways to stimulate the 'real economy' more effectively following the crash.

[Jeremy]

Corbyn has spoken about a "planned economy" on several occasions.

[*Bob*]

It's just a shame Tony Benn couldn't have hung on a bit longer to see all this.

[Otta]

Okay, so I have my ballot papers, and I genuinely don?t know how to vote.

I am not convinced by Jeremy Cobyn?s plans to print money, that is a worry. I also don?t think policies like scrapping trident (which I do personally agree with) would ever win him a general election, so what?s the point?

That said, none of the others have even come close to winning me over.

I like Andy Burnham and think he?s a good guy. But he?s fought a rubbish campaign, just lurching from populist stance to populist stance and trying to steal some of Corbyn's thunder.

I like the fact that Yvette Cooper is the only one willing to say ?hang on a minute, we did good things in government and the global financial crisis wasn?t all the Labour Party?s fault?, rather than just accepting (and indeed apologising for a?la Burnham) the Tory rhetoric which has more or less just been accepted as fact by the majority of people. However, I don?t much like the way she?s fought her campaign, she comes across as arrogant and she?s a dirty fighter, but then maybe just maybe that?s what we need week in week out at PM?s questions.

Why do they all go on about schools and hospitals, schools and hospitals, schools and hospitals, and never mention social care, which is JUST AS BLOODY IMPORTANT!!!!!

Liz Kendall DOES actually say good things about social care, but other than that she can jog on.

Sorry about the long post, just trying to think it through.

Corbyn would DEFINITELY be the most fun to watch, but perhaps I should just stick to HBO for my entertainment?

Hmmm, Cooper?. Burnham?

I did say at the start that a woman leader would be good?

Aaaaggghhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Maybe I should just put my hand over Kendall?s box then close my eyes and tick one of the others.

Although Kendall may not want my hand over her box.

[JohnL]

Corbyn will bring the middle ground of UK politic to the left - and so much fun to watch.

Then in a few years a young labour leader with no baggage will appear :)