The Labour leadership contest is shaping up. It seems to be setting on Burnham, Kendall and Cooper. I’m politically unaffiliated, though instinctively soft left liberal by nature. My instinct is a Milibandesque agenda fronted by Andy Burnham doesn’t sound like a winner, though I thought he did well on John Pinaar last week, and I always quite lilked Yvette Cooper but she seems to be living up to her Hacker reputation of not saying much which upsets anyone. I’d never heard of Liz Kendall but (given my stated position) I quite like her.
Interesting New Stateman assessment.
Thorts?
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/06/were-beginning-see-outlines-labour-leadership-race
I get to vote in this contest, and like you, I’m inclining more to Liz Kendall. Not that impressed by Cooper, and while Andy Burnham does come over quite well, staking the next election on the gamble that this year’s hammering was down to personality instead of policy is risky.
Labour needs to work out what it is for, and I don’t think any of them know.
Ironic that HSBC is saying it’ll up sticks if it doesn’t get the toys back in its pram tout suite – the likes of the Daily Telegraph were only telling us pre-election that that would happen the minute Labour got in.
I thought this article had some interesting things to say.
http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2015/06/09/labour-can-win-in-2020-but-it-has-to-pause-this-leadership-c
Yvette Cooper would be my number 1 pick though could irrationally be tainted by association with her husband.
I think they’ll go Burnham. A smooth talking Scouser does appeal to the old Socialist worker in me but would the Tory media see him as Hatton-lite in the dumbed down world of Daily Mail politics?
Risk either way.
None of the declared candidates fill me with ant enthusiasm. All seem to be following the Tory-lite idea, which is not what Labour should be about. Glad to see that Jeremy Corbyn has put himself forward, there’s no chance he’ll win (being very much of the left), but at least if he gets nominated he will stimulate a proper debate on where the party should go from the low point it is at now.
“None of the declared candidates fill me with ant enthusiasm. ”
http://timbuktu.faithweb.com/
Labour are in serious crisis, whether they care to accept it or not. As GCU pointed out, they firstly need to establish what they stand for, which part of the electorate they represent and who leads them. Currently, they were seen to represent public sector workers, benefits claimants and the less-educated immigrant population. While Brown was gleefully expanding the public sector, Mandelson ‘sending out search parties for immigrants’ and benefits increasing, their hopes lay in expanding their client state. This has now backfired on them.
As for the 2020 election, there are a number of problems. They have little chance of regaining many seats from the SNP. They had become too complacent and too arrogant in assuming that their vote would always hold up. At best. They could possibly regain ten seats at a maximum and I would guess they will not even get near that. In the North of England, they face opposition from UKIP who have eaten into their working class vote mainly because Labour were perceived to be soft on immigration and unwilling to discuss this issue. The votes from ancestor worshippers is also in decline. In the South of England, they were perceived to be incapable of running the economy. Their vote only increased in London constituencies with a high ethnic component.
During this Parliament, the constituency boundaries are likely to be redrawn. If this happens, Labour will need to gain over one hundred seats at the next election. That is unlikely unless something catastrophic occurs. Even a week is a long time in politics, so who knows?
As regards the candidates, I was very surprised to hear Burnham claim that the last manifesto was the best he’d ever campaigned under. That makes me question his judgement. Though Miliband was a geekish wonk, I don’t believe it was solely the UK public shuddering at the thought of him occupying No 10 that was the sole reason for the defeat. He also has the ‘political class’standard issue background of PPE at Oxbridge followed by life as a SPAD.
Cooper is an authoritarian, humourless, scowling, prig. Again a ‘political class’ clone with nothing of any import to say.
Kendall, like Burnham, appears to be a human being which is a plus. I think she comes across as fresh, open and, relatively, honest. Too early for her, I believe.
As for Corbyn, at least he is a true believer. He has no chance, which will disappoint the Tories.
I’m sure Burnham will win, but if, as currently, he believes all that’s nee is a retread of the last manifesto plus non-stop fearmongering about ‘our NHS, fronted by his mascara’d face, then Labour face a further ten years out of power.
Having met Yvette Cooper on a number of occasions, a humourless, scowling, prig description is far, far removed from my experience. Interesting, engaging, remembers names and faces from previous meetings and a little bit too flirty. Which, in fairness, would make me vote for her.
Cooper – shame then that the private persona you’ve encountered is so far removed from the sour-faced scold she presents to the general public.
Your post upthread says largely what I was thinking when I was pressed for time earlier, and posted the link to the Ian Dunt article. Corbyn is standing so there’s a choice, but it will be one of the others. At heart, I’m a Labour voter, but haven’t since 1997. I don’t think I’ve been as depressed about politics as I am now. The Left needs to get hold of something to galvanise a mass movement. I honestly don’t see Burnham, Cooper et al doing this. Chukka wasn’t the answer, nor was Keir Starmer. Pfftttt . . .
Well said Ian, this largely sums up how I feel about the mess Labour are in. First things first, they have to work out they believe in and develop a sound core of beliefs which aren’t Tory-lite. They are still stuck in the post-1945 we created the NHS world. Whether people like it or not the Tories underwent a fundamental change with Thatcher and her advisors and Labour have not responded intelligently. Their sole approach since then was the vacuous and increasingly deranged years of Blair, Mandelson and Brown which only went to prove that they remain as hopeless in managing the economy as they were in the 1970s. Of course they need a leader but unless they tackle the fundamental role of what Labour should stand for now, the leadership election will just be an irrelevant sideshow. I found it absolutely bloody laughable that all were desperate to anoint Chuka Umuna so soon after the election as if all Labour needed was a clean cut type with nice suits and clean fingernails. There is a need for a serious opposition; good governance is about having a serious opposition keeping the government honest, but Labour are going to be hopeless for a while yet.
OT, Ian you are back! Hadn’t noticed. good to have you back and providing some balance to us looney lefties.
All I know about Liz Kendall is that the comedian Greg Davies was her partner up until the general election. Could have made the forthcoming proceedings a tad less tedious if he still was
My instinctive vote is for Liz Kendall, but my good friend who is a party activist and local councillor tells me that she’s roaringly in favour of private companies delivering NHS services, and allegedly has a personal stake in one – which (m’learned friends) I am sure is untrue. But that’s wot e sed.
It makes me want to do a bit of research into her views on the subject, though.
Not according to her profile, which I suppose could be untrue but it seems unlikely…
http://www.lizkendall.org/about/
As far as private companies delivering services, whilst I dislike the idea of people making profit out of health, if (and I realise it is a massive if) it is a better, quicker service and costs less, I am not sure I care. Put the other way, a good, cost effective service is what we need given the endless NHS funding crises. Everyone being employed by the state from the cleaner upwards isn’t the point.
I like the look of her too, and apparently she’s the one the Tories are worried about as their legacy jibes will bounce off her and she might actually have some appeal and new ideas….I agree with Ianess though, it will probably be Burnham and oblivion beckons. Which is a disaster because an effective opposition is important.
I wouldn’t vote for any of them. Political pygmies every one.
I held my nose and with a heavy heart voted Labour back in May. I won’t do so agai
Until something changes I see absolutely no point in continuing to vote for political parties who can offer up nothing more than slight variations of the colour blue.
I’m more than happy to engage politically at grass roots levels on aspects of life that I feel passionately about. More than happy to protest, to continue to email my local MP and MEP and sign and deliver petitions on subjects I feel strongly about but until one of the Westminster parties can convince me that they are genuinely offering an alternative to the insane politics of inequality that has a vice like grip at the moment my ballot paper in the future will be deliberately spoilt.
Yep, I think I’d go with that. I know from old that I’m not generally aligned with Ian politically, but it’s a bang on analysis. This time round I held my nose and voted labour, partly because I think Miliband was more substantial than he ended up looking,mans partly because I had no other options.
None of what’s on offer appeals to me now, especially as the frame of reference for the position is framed not by labour, but by Osborne and the way the economy will be managed. They will fall for that, apart from Corbyn, who will get his place because the party will convince theme selves that they will get the party’s conscience into the debate.
The whole thing depresses the shit out of me. Perhaps that little Kennedy throwaway remark before his death might have some legs…
Any leader that apes Toryism and drags the Labour party further to the right is doomed to failure. They can’t chase Tory votes. It’s a non-starter.
The leader Labour need, but won’t get is Jeremy Corbyn, a real passionate Socialist, anti-austerity and in no way a Red Tory.
Burnham, Cooper and Kendall are all disgraces to the Labour movement.
I’ve met Corbyn a few times and used to work with his son. Lovely chaps, both. But Corbyn père would take Labour to an entirely principled and honourable wipeout in any election you care to mention.
Like Michael Foot.
Based on all of the above comments the shadow of Thatcher continues to cast a long shadow over our population.
None of the choices on offer seem very inspiring – it’s hard to see any of them masterminding a Labour victory at the polls in five years time.
Not another white bloke in a suit will get my vote.
That’s as far as I have got.
(We are talking about the 13th Doctor, aren’t we?)
I voted for Andy Burnham last time and may well do so again.
In a surprise development, I disagree with much of what has been said above (though nice to see ianess back!).
Firstly, the last thing that Labour needs to do is to sharply define what it is for. The Tory party is the most successful electoral machine in the western world precisely because it has managed to avoid falling into that trap. Labour needs to stick to its widely understood broad principles (pro people rather than pro business, for the many not the few etc.) and devise a popular programme around them.
Secondly, the catastrophe in Scotland disguised the fact that Labour got its best result in England since 2001, in terms of votes. While not brilliant, let’s not make the mistake of being overly pessimistic about Labour’s chances of removing the Tories’ Callaghan-esque majority at the next GE.
The function of the Labour Party is to win elections and implement a broadly progressive programme. Heck, doing nothing at all would be an improvement on the current lot.
I’ve therefore little patience with the idea that someone like Corbyn is what’s needed. I’ve always been suspicious of glass cabinet socialism – principles so pristine that there’s no chance of them ever being actually used; display purposes only.
So, basically, I will vote for whoever seems likeliest to win an election. The various policy positions are basically a side-show to that (caveat – unless one of them is an animal rights proponent or other anti-science balloon).
“The function of the Labour Party is to win elections and implement a broadly progressive programme.”
Given that Labour, despite a spanking at the GE, continue to peddle the Austerity mantra (victimise the poor, protect the rich) I can’t see much evidence of either their “widely understood broad principles” or any progressiveness. They had a chance to lead a progressive alliance, uniting SNP, Lib Dem and Green but poor old Ed took his spin doctor’s advice and ruled out any form of coalition with the SNP.
Labour are fucked unless they start representing ALL of the working class again, not just the fabled “hard working families”. Get out and give the people who didn’t vote at all a reason to vote for them, stop chasing Tory voters and they might stand a chance.
Elect any of the three stooges and they may as well just merge with the Tory party.
Principled powerlessness does not appeal to me.
Before the 2010 election a lot of people were saying there was no difference between New Labour and the Tories. Really? Do you really think that? Even if it is only a question of degree (and I don’t think it is that little) there IS a difference. I will take a marginally less evil government over a more evil one, even though I would prefer one that isn’t evil at all.
So, Lando, power over principle?
I really think that one of the reasons they struggled to have clear message of principle of what they were actually “for” and smacked of just being anti Tory and desperate for power.
I’d sooner vote for someone with whom I disagree on some points but is arguing on principle than some ‘lets adapt the message to whatever we have to”
I think I need Nye Bevan.
I see no great principle in powerlessness. As I say, I have little time for glass cabinet socialism – generally the province of people who can afford a Tory government, IME.
Lando. I realise you need to clutch at whatever straws are available, but talk of a ‘Callaghanesque’ majority is a trifle disingenuous. Labour currently have 98 fewer seats than the Conservatives and will need an incredible swing at the next election for them to achieve an overall majority themselves. I also presume the new fixed-terms of five years make it highly unlikely that there will be any toppling of the present government.
The EU referendum is the only likely time when the fixed term rule will come under challenge if the Tory party implodes. Which is possible.
This was a must win election for Labour, and they lost it. Things are going to be very bad for Labour indeed, and I see no chance for Labour to win in a generation. Scotland is increasingly likely to leave the Union, and given the boundary changes Labour face an insurmountable task to win again. Of course people may get tired of George Osborne’s bare faced lies, but they have shown no sign of it in 5 years.
On the plus side my constituency MP is likely the get the chop when the constituency gets the chop.
Labour currently have considerably more seats than the Tories had in 2005. It’s not great – and obviously not where I would like to be – but it’s not as black as it is sometimes painted. I agree that the gap between Labour and Tories is large, however the overall majority in the HoC is what counts. Hence the Callaghan government fell when the SNP voted with the Tories.
Fixed term parliaments do not make the government bullet-proof – they still need to command a majority in the HoC. However, the PM no longer has the power to call a GE to try and secure (or increase) that majority (as Wilson did in 1966 and 1974).
Lando, just where are Labour going to garner an additional 100 odd seats? Maybe a few from Wales and Scotland. Hardly any Lib Dems left to pick off. Maybe even lose some to UKIP in the North. That leaves the South which has been getting even more blue, with the exception of a few enclaves in London.
Oh, well done for dusting off the hoary old myth that the dastardly SNP solely brought down the marvellously successful Callaghan government that had had to get a bailout from the IMF and was reduced to wheeling in dying MPs in a desperate effort to cling on to power.
Bringing it back to the current day, where most of us reside, the Tories are in a much different position. They not only have a fairly comfortable majority on their own, but, as you’ll be well aware, they can rely on extra votes from the Northern Irish. The Tories are pretty savvy enough to play it as they wish.
Also, I’d think that Labour do not have their sorrows to seek over the next couple of years in electing a new leader and trying to find a new direction that will have some appeal outside their core vote.
Welcome back, you have been missed!
I didn’t say that the SNP brought down the Callaghan government on their own – I specifically said that they voted with the Tories to do it. An act so toxic that nats are still prickly about it, decades later. And therein lies the most immediate threat to the Tories with their tiny majority.
However, there’s no getting away from the fact that Labour need to widen their appeal and win back seats last won with Blair as leader. Difficult but certainly not impossible – the world is going to look like a very different place in 5 years time. Nor do I rule out a Labour revival in Scotland, once the present tulip mania has passed.
There are, as the song says, reasons to be cheerful.
Yes, all of 11 SNP MPs voted with the Tories. As did the LIberals (who had swiftly detached themselves from the rotting corpse of Labour) and the Irish parties – a grand total of 311 votes. Labour had the support of the mighty Plaid Cymru, having cravenly given them inducements to vote with them. Asa result, the ’79 election was held five months before the full five year term had elapsed. The voters then spoke, the bastards. They, particularly, the English ones, overwhelmingly rejected the clapped-out Labour party and the Tories had 2 million votes more than them. Nats are ‘still prickly’ about this ‘toxic’ act. My arse. The only ones still prattling on about this ancient history are Labour, assiduously polishing the absurd myth/lie that the SNP birthed Thatcher. Sorry, mate, the electorate spoke.
The world will ‘look like a very different place in 5 years time’, but, apart from being a statement of the bleeding obvious, who’s to say that circumstances in 2020 will, or will not, favour Labour? Incumbent governments generally hold the advantage come election time for a variety of reasons, plus the Tories will benefit by over 20 seats in the forthcoming boundary reforms at the direct expense of Labour. Where, precisely, are the 100 plus seats you will need to gain going to come from? This is the key question. Where are you going to pick up this enormous number of gains?
I genuinely fear for your sanity if you are comparing the level of support for the ruling party in Scotland as a phenomenon akin to ‘tulip mania’. Support for the SNP has risen even further since the election and now stands at a staggering 60%. I know you had to retire to bed early to avoid witnessing the election bloodbath in Scotland, so let me enlighten you. Your boys took one hell of a beating.
Given the enormous margins of victory and the stunning numbers of votes won by the SNP candidates, there is little likelihood of Labour turning this around any time soon.
What you’re missing, or closing your mind to, is that the Scottish electorate are no longer listening to Labour. Your party’s complacency, arrogance and corruption and their high-handed assumption that Scotland was their permanent fiefdom has come back to bite them.
Also, it will not soon be forgotten that Labour stood shoulder to shoulder with the Tories and the Liberals during the independence referendum and took great pleasure in informing the Scots that they were too wee, too stupid and too poor to be able to cope with independence. The ‘Red Tories’ jibe will be very difficult to counter and will take some time to die down. The repugnant comparison made between the genuine desire of many Scots for nationhood (which crossed party lines) and Nazi-style fascism were contemptible.
Ou sont les Blairs de l’antan? I don’t see any messianic Blair-style politicians who are going to have nationwide appeal in the extremely lacklustre line-up. The current Labour party despise Blair and his New Labour policies, so they’re not going back to that winning formula any time soon.
Name your ‘reasons to be cheerful’. Otherwise, I’ll have to assume that you’re mindlessly whistling in the dark to keep your spirits up. It must be hard to see your religion rejected and despised.
Ah, touched a nerve, I see! Don’t worry though, hardly anyone remembers that the SNP support for the Tories ushered in Thatcher…
And, yes, tulip mania. The current bubble is impervious to reason but will inevitably burst. The happy band of soi-disant socialists, libertarian free-marketeers and the frankly unpleasant is not a sustainable one. Hence the inability of the SNP to look at its own history. And the likelihood that the next iteration of the referendum will produce the same result.
My reasons to be cheerful? Simply that if the Tories can pull back from 2005 to 2010, Labour can do likewise. It’s by no means inevitable – but certainly not impossible, either.
And as you surely know “too wee, too stupid, too poor” is an SNP quote, not a Labour one.
The Labour Party under any of the current contenders will continue to fail unless they properly embrace the middle ground and be seen to be inclusive of business and compassion – successfully demonstrated and established by the Blair/Brown era and then ignored by Ed the Wonk. Thank Heavens he’s gone.
Ed’s inability to fight the Conservative PR machine and allow the ‘Labour cannot be trusted with the economy’ lie to embed itself in the nations conscience was his and his party’s other down fall. This ‘lie’ will not go away. The ‘message’ is to valuable to the Conservatives and the new Labour leadership would continue to ignore it at their peril.
Frankly I find the current leadership contenders an uninspiring bunch, but I’m sure Burnham used to be in Stingray so he gets my vote.
I’m glad I’m not the only one that things he looks like a Gerry Anderson puppet. You’re right, it’s The Hood in one of his disguises!
Tony Blair is back in the job market.
Just sayin …
Unless, of course, he gets the gig at FIFA?
Is that the same Tony Blair who was a serial election winner for the Labour party?
Obviously what I say cannot be proven, but I seriously believe he would still be PM if he had wanted to. Like him or not, the man was a massive player in UK politics since the death of John Smith, & I would rather have a new Labour government that an Old /traditional/socialist Labour opposition any day.
Tony Blair is/was the only Labour leader of my adult life who the consrvtive party were scared of, they couldnt lay a glove on him.
As ever, OOAA.
The transfer window is open, Nicola anyone? Just saying like.
I don’t want to intrude on private grief but Labour in Scotland are dead in the water unless they can stop fixating on another referendum, and accept the fact that they lost to a party that wasn’t standing on a Tory-lite platform.
They need to develop a modern left of centre alternative, and a leader who isn’t tarnished by the 2008 crisis, (which the Tories are thankful didn’t happen when they were in office, but their policies would not have prevented the crash).
None of the candidates inspires any confidence in me but Burnham comes across as an insincere careerist and may not be the best bet OOAA.
He was up against a bunch of halfwits anyone could have beaten.
Labour has to decide what it is.
Does the fixed term five year thing mean that an unpopular Government can’t be booted out early via a vote of no confidence?
No, as I understand it. A vote of no confidence would mean that someone else would need to try and form a government (ie to command a majority in the HoC).
Doesn’t matter who gets elected next Labour Leader. The current contenders will all be history by the time the next General Election comes around. None of them are “winners”.
None of ’em on the Tory side are “winners” either, it should be noted. Second-raters all.
I think Ianness has summed things up very well. Labour have themselves to blame for 79, & as he says, it was only bringing the 1979 GE forward by 5 months, Thatcher winning in 79 was always going to happen. Like her or not (& I despised her), she offered the electorate change, put her case to the electorate in a very convincing manner. Labour looked like what they were, knackered & offering no inspiration. As soon as James Callaghan, (A politician I admire & respect enormously) told the country that he would not be calling a general election, (I cant remember the exact date, but September 78 springs to mind, Labour were doomed).
I think Labour (Scottish Labour) were complacent & took it for granted that they (The Scottish electorate) would vote Labour just as they always did.
I have always voted Labour, & I suspect I always will, but I think they got out of the recent election exactly what they deserved – Fuck all.
Pleas excuse the ramblings of an old sailor
I like Burnham – I really don’t agree that he is merely a careerist politician – I think he is decent, sincere and smarter than some give him credit for. And I think he will win the leadership election. But I don’t think he would be the right choice – I think Cooper would probably be a better leader.
I agree though that none of them – and certainly not Liz Kendall – suggest they have anything like Blair’s ability to lead Labour back to a majority, or even Kinnock’s to turn things around and get them back on track.
That said I think the Tories are in for a sticky ride. Europe is going to be toxic for them and Cameron is going to become a lame duck leader at some point as they prepare for Osborne’s coronation.
So still all to play for….
Lando – I specifically referred to Labour supporters pathetic attempts over the decades to claim that, using some bizarre logic, the SNP were responsible for the Thatcher era. The current support for the SNP is., most probably, at a high water mark, but I don’t see it dramatically reducing over the next few years. Your sneering comments about their support amply demonstrate the contempt and condescension you regularly display towards those who do not vote for your party. Labour in Scotland are a busted flush. To repeat myself as you clearly aren’t pay attention- where are to 100 plus seats coming from? To recap: Scotland- maybe a few; Wales – may lose a couple; North of England – may lose a few to UKIP due to your failure to address the immigration issue; London – maybe a couple more in areas where ethnic population increasing; South of England- difficult to see where you’re going to get any; Midlands- you’re probably at saturation point.
The last real Labour PM that won an election was Harold Wilson. Blair was the only kind of Labour leader that could possibly get middle England to vote for him and now he’s despised by his own party. I can’t see a Scouser like Burnham, supported by Unite, a declared admirer of your last suicide note/manifesto, someone who’s never had a ‘real’ job and a supporter of a 50 % tax rate being in any way attractive to that portion of the electorate you need to attract. Your sect may even get smaller, but, never mind, you’ll have your faith and your resentment of the voters to keep you warm.
‘Touched a nerve’? Sorry to disappoint- the feeble canard you and your miserable band of brothers have been attempting to perpetuate as regards ’79 is laughable.
It took the Tories 13 years to get back, not five, and that was via coalition. They couldn’t even beat a buffoon like Gordon Brown.
Ah, @ianess, your continuing attempts to cheer me up are much appreciated.* However, the thought of you marching arm-in-arm with your newly acquired bien pensant, taxin’, spendin’ comrades, like your very own version of Huis Clos, is amusement enough (note to self: file away for Fringe play in 2020).
You are fixated on Labour’s 100 seats needed to attain a majority government. Leaving aside the assumptions behind that figure, the answer is a simple one: Labour will need to win seats that they do not currently hold but which they have held in the past. It’s a big hurdle – almost as big as that facing the Tories after the 2005 election. But it’s by no means impossible. How, exactly will it be done? If I knew that, I wouldn’t be eking a living as a jobbing scientist. Note also that – as with the Tories in 2010 – a majority isn’t necessary to form a government. The toxic after-effects of 1979 – alas, pretending they don’t exist doesn’t make them go away – means that the SNP will not dare to vote with the Tories to bring down a Labour government again. A minority government is therefore quite feasible, if hard work for the whips.
Now the current situation in Scotland would certainly not be of my choosing. However it is certainly fascinating as a phenomenon – and it is certainly neither sneering nor condescending to point out that the current SNP support is both contradictory and unsustainable. In a rational world, we might expect that the White Paper turning out to be more of a tissue and the u-turn over FFA to have had some impact on SNP credibility, these being big things. Yet it has not. In an objective sense, this is interesting.
Lastly, in return for your own generosity, here’s a blog I think you will like (not by a Labour supporter AFAIK): http://chokkablog.blogspot.co.uk/ full of boring old facts and figures about the Scottish economy. I’m guessing you might agree with the analysis but come to a different conclusion.
*Seriously
My (insincere) apologies for again intruding upon the grief of the Scottish Labour Party, but one of your numerous ex-leaders (Lamont, IIRC) recently said Labour were acting as if ‘to save voters from their stupidity’ in voting SNP. The SNP were always going to be a broad church – its raison d’etre is to strive for independence. This is an aim shared by individuals across the political spectrum. If independence were ever to be achieved, then I believe the SNP would become a left-leaning, social democrat-type party. That would leave some of its previous supporters, post-independence, to vote for other parties which may more closely accord with their beliefs.
You make the mistake of believing that all voters are the one-eyed, ancestor worshipping, diehard ideologues that comprise the religious sect that call themselves Labour.
The SNP have been clever in moving onto the tax and spend ground that Labour thought belonged to them exclusively. However, in contrast to Labour, they have also squared the circle by constantly stressing and demonstrating that they are pro-business. I’m fiscally conservative, though socially liberal – a not uncommon mix, you’ll find.
As regards the 100 MPs figure, you’re quite correct that this is the number required for a majority. However, you’ll have noted that the notion of Labour running a minority government in league with the SNP proved toxic to English voters.
Europe will prove an interesting issue as the Tories have been fighting about this for nigh on 60 years. I suspect the current Tory intake contains fewer headbangers and even fewer who’d jeopardise their party’s slender majority by throwing hissy fits. The vote will be overwhelmingly ‘Yes’ anyway. The major parties, the BBC and the media will ensure that.
I may have a look at the blog, but. as you already know, it’s not just the economy, stupid.
I’ll leave you to electing your next Leader – it’s all getting a bit like post-war Italy the number you’ve gone through in the past decade.
Religious sect? Well, let’s take a look at some evidence. From the graph below (British Election Study data), which party shows sect-like behaviour?
http://i1022.photobucket.com/albums/af344/embraman/bes6.png
A week is a long time in politics, let alone five years. A political geography which seems fixed can easily shift, particularly if the economy hits choppy waters. Doubly so if the Conservative Party needs to address Europe – that’s an internal dialogue that doesn’t historically go too well.
What the Labour Party needs is two things, the same two things all opposition parties need: a set of circumstances which induce the British public to change horse (and no amount of charismatic opposition leadership can fabricate this), and then a platform strong enough to put them in power with a decent majority.
On the latter point, I don’t personally see this happening until we stop asking what we’d like the Labour Party to be in an ideal world, and ask what the public, en masse, would like it to be. The answer to that question is not in a million years a swing further to the left, unless you feel you have the magic words to sell socialism to an electorate who are, historically, not buying – and with pretty good reason.
If the alternative is Tory-Lite, then colour me Tory-Lite.
I will also add this: the Labour Party will not reclaim power in this country until it finds some sort of peace with Tony Blair and his legacy.
OOAA
I agree with pretty much all this. Europe is going to be the defining issue of the next few years for the Tories – even John Major took more than thirty days after his election victory to make an embarrassing climbdown on the subject – but even in a world where their main rivals could conceivably not exist in the way we know them now three years down the line, Labour are still going to be a tough sell to the electorate.
Oh, just to be clear, I was relieved when the appalling shambles that was the Callaghan government were defeated in the vote of confidence. It was embarrassing to watch them wheel in desperately Ill and, even, dying MPs in their pathetic attempts to cling on to power. Their inability to run the economy and their refusal to deal with abuses of Union power meant they had been heading for a massive defeat for a couple of years.
I can remember one of our nation’s greatest intellectuals saying in about 1992, “You’re too young to remember Labour governments, son. I do, and they were rubbish”.
That was Lemmy.
I’ve just caught up with this thread and believe many of the comments to be more astute and insightful than some of the guff that has passed for ‘analysis’ in the national media.
I heard two Labour MSPs on the radio the other week talking about their election catastrophe. One of them said: “We definitely had the right policies, but the electorate just didn’t want to listen”.
If this kind of thinking is common within the party, then Labour is as far away from power now as it was after the debacle of the 1983 election, i.e. 14 years and three general elections.
Couldn’t agree more with your opening point and what a delight to have a return to civilised (so far) and relatively balanced political debate on these pages.
Lando – wasn’t it recently reported that Labour supporters were, by far, the most likely to ‘unfriend’ someone on social media if they’d expressed non-left wing views.
As regards sect-like behaviour, I’d hazard a guess (nothing scientific) that Labour supporters are the most likely to vote for their party, and their party only, over a lifetime. They, historically, don’t take kindly to apostates. That may now be changing in Scotland and the North. Labour supporters appear to have the highest rates of ancestor worship, explaining their voting choice in terms of what their grandad or dad did. They don’t strike one as the most floating of voters.
Any party which can happily worship a senior politician like Nye Bevan who categorised supporters of another party as ‘lower than vermin’ would seem to have an issue as regards dehumanisation of the opposition. Their attitude to others who may hold opposing views is that they must be mad or bad, rather than individuals who have made a rational choice as to what may be best for the country.
So. To go back to the data – what is your interpretation of it?
PS you obviously didn’t get the memo but the SNP love Nye Bevan now – Jim Sillars going to far as to claim his book is some sort of sequel to Bevan’s In Place of Fear.
Well, well…what a short memory people have! Firstly, SNP were always going to do this after getting just short of 50% in the referendum – first past the post system versus against the rest meant this was always the predicted result, surely? I suspect this will be a high water mark…the SDP come to mind here. The nonsense of the Tory election winning formula is again trotted out – they loooked invinciple in the 80s with a divided opposition and Labour were written off, but Labour rallied and defeated them 3 times in a row under the briliant leadership of Blair…and it was, before the Iraq war, or rather the mishandled aftermath, sullied that particular reputation, and lets not forget Brown ran a budget surplus for many years. Labour’s strategy to not counter the Tory lie of economic mismanagement was baffling – I argued this for years in the party – and it was the stupid Miliband leadership that allowed the Tories to win that argument. The Tories have a small majority and Cameron is weak, the SNP will falter as realities bite, and the Labour party will be back. It wasn’t long ago that Tories locally here in Devon wouldn’t even admit they were party members…and the Liberals were top of the pile! Things change remarkably quickly.
There’s been some high quality bollox on this thread but thank you NigelT for those words of wisdom.
Sorry – your comparison of the SNP, a party that has run and continues to run Scotland, with the ‘here today, gone tomorrow’ SDP, a party composed of four bitter Labour has-beens, makes it clear you haven’t a clue about the political realities prevailing in Scotland.
Labour didn’t ‘mismanage the economy? All the best with convincing the electorate. They didn’t buy it this time round.
‘High quality bollox’ – let’s have some of your low grade crap instead.
I speak (type) as a lifelong Labour voter & supporter, even though I often dont know why. Old habits die hard I suppose.
FWIIW, I think any Labour party member/activist/voter/supporter who thinks that the party were not left wing enough last month are living in cloud cuckoo land.
A large section of the british electorate do not like the Labour party & what they think they stand for (as I see it, vote Labour if you want to see loads of immigrants take our jobs’n’ouses)
The more I see, the more I see 1983.
OOAA.
Lando- The amusing little graph? Would have been a good feature for Jackie magazine. I note that, of all the major parties, Labour supporters are the prickliest. No real surprise that supporters of the smaller parties are more often derided and patronised, this may lead them to be more sensitive. Doesn’t bother me.
Why, though, are Labour supporters more prone to ‘unfriend’ those who express views they disagree with? Their herd mentality; their authoritarian streak?
As for Sillars, no great surprise that an ex-Labour firebrand may admire a bitter, Welsh twat class warrior. No memo received- we don’t need a Little Red Book, nor do we have to march in lockstep. Broad church, old bean.
Best of luck with Kesia. She’s not only ‘inexperienced’ as her opponent has helpfully pointed out, but she’s not exactly overburdened with oratorical skills nor a piercing intellect. Good luck with her persuading the electorate to vote Labour, given that she can’t even convince her own Dad to switch allegiance from the SNP.
How many leaders will you have had in the past decade? Is it seven or eight? They seem to be getting worse also.
As for the purveyor of ‘words of wisdom’, I note Chuka is quoted today as saying ‘if you can’t run a surplus after 15 years of growth, as was the case in 2007, then when can you run one?’ So, there’s another who’s bought into the ‘Tory lie’. Thank God that Gordon had ‘abolished boom and bust’ by then or we’d rea have been in trouble.
You make the common mistake of equating the referendum vote with the SNP vote. The 45% who voted for independence came from across party lines, though the vast majority would be SNP. The pro-Union vote also came from across party lines as Tories, Labour and Liberals stood shoulder to shoulder in fighting independence and denigrating those who wished it.
Contrary to expectation, the SNP membership grew post-referendum. The subsequent election result was unsurprising, though its scale was unexpected and unprecedented.
What Labour had failed to realise was that their party was imploding in Scotland and had been for some years. They kept promising to ‘listen’ to the electorate, but what they’ve even still to realise is that the electorate long ago stopped listening to them. The SNP are now at 60% in the polls, again unprecedented and, probably, a high water mark. Any higher and we’d be entering North Korean approval levels. This ‘tulip mania’ is not some bubble that will suddenly and irrevocably collapse. Labour are only deluding themselves to think the old order will be reinstated any time soon.
As for Labour being ‘written off’ in the mid-80s, it did take them till ’97 to be elected after 18 years out of power. By that time, the electorate wanted a change anyway. A slick Fettes public school boy like Tone was just the ticket. Shame he’s loathed now.
I’d also point out that the Tory party lost a larger portion of its vote to UKIP. than Labour did. This may alter post-referendum, though whether these ex-Tory voters will return to the fold is arguable.
There you go- some more ‘high quality bollox’ for your enjoyment.
Once again, I must be the bearer of bad news: you nationalists do actually have to march in lockstep. To quote the new SNP disciplinary code: “no Member shall, within or outwith Parliament, publicly criticise a Group decision, policy or another member of the Group”.
Despite your aversion to actual data, I must turn again to the BES graph. What is it telling us about the nature of a substantial proportion of SNP support? Is that sort of over-identification not a little….sect-like?
I stand by my tulip mania analysis. I have a hunch – that is all – that Nicola’s comparator is Louis Napoleon, rather than his uncle.