The next leader of the Labour Party (and other matters)

[immaterial]

Not keen on Abbott's confused politics, but at least a woman candidate has come forward.

My principal concern is that the Labour Party - the affiliated unions, CLPs, along with party activists - has an opportunity to hear a full, open and honest debate about the way forward, and the socialist policies, not the personalities, that it needs to equip itself with in order to fight this coalition of the cutters.

[DJKillaQueen]

They seemingly have given themselves time to do that but of course these days, a leader has to be a personality if they are going to win an election. Having said that, I don't think that either Cameron or Clegg are interesting in themselves and part of me thinks that is the real reason we have ended up with a hung parliament.

[Marmora Man]

to fight this coalition of the cutters.

Do you really believe that had the election result been different a Labour government would not also have been planning major cuts in government spending. It was Alastair Darling that said that the necessary cuts would be the hardest ever, deeper and more prolonged than those of the early 80's.

Reducing government spending is an economic necessity not a political stance. Opposing them is economic illiteracy not principled purity.

[Huguenot]

Out of the UK population of 60m, only 19m are working.

There does seem to be a significant lobby preoccupied with the 'rights' and 'benefits' of the 68% of the population sponging off the efforts of the rest.

Allowing for the 15m under the age of 18, that still leaves us with 26m who are voting on how much of other people's money to take, and how much of it to spend.

Doesn't seem fair. I credit the population with recognising this.

I'll be betting that a significant swathe of Labour support doesn't come from olde skoole flatte cappe 'workers' at all. I'm guessing they don't even total 500,000.

New Labour's achievement was to recognise the need to cater for a bigger slice of the population, coloured with an altruistic bent.

However, I think they just lost the plot at the end. There's no knowing what the hardcore Labour politicians would have done had they remained in power. Their refusal to negotiate with the Lib Dems is a reflection of this.

If Socialist Worker types have returned to the fold, then they'll simply accellerate the demise.

[Brendan]

Interesting figures. Do you know how many of the 26 million who are not in employment are retired, house wives/husbands/partners/people/technicians or full time carers?

[Huguenot]

All of them :))

[immaterial]

RED ALERT - RED ALERT - John Mcdonnell to speak on Any Questions, Radio 4, 20.00!

[sian]

LoZ - Mark Serwotka seems to have been a bit quiet. Is this going to last for the next 5 years?

[dc]

Huguenot Wrote:

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

> Out of the UK population of 60m, only 19m are working.

That's way off. The actual figure is 28.83 million: Labour Market Statistics

[immaterial]

Sian - Attended a strike at the National Gallery two weeks ago and was told by a NEC member that Serwotka's in hospital with heart problems.....

[Loz]

sian Wrote:

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

> LoZ - Mark Serwotka seems to have been a bit

> quiet. Is this going to last for the next 5 years?

I'd not heard of this fellow and had to google his name! Union leaders aren't really an area of interest for me.

[david_carnell]

Mamora Man ? I?d like to try and come back and answer/rebut some of your points.

Why do I see Cameron as the perfect political foe? Primarily for media reasons. His background presents an easy target. Coming from a left of centre viewpoint, I believe that if the Labour Party can?t make political hay whilst the proverbial Eton-educated sun is shining in Downing Street then something is wrong somewhere. Politically, there have been Conservative PMs and leaders who I have liked less (I?m impressed with his stance on civil liberties for instance) but I believe he is still a PM looking to govern for a privileged few rather than the many. Essentially, as a democratic socialist, my economic beliefs are an anathema to his.

I do not doubt that there is a deficit that needs to be tackled. However, currently this seems to be being done through spending cuts only. There is little to no discussion about the ratio of tax raises to spending cuts. I would like prospective Labour leaders to make these arguments.

I?m afraid I disagree with your opinion that Labour does not need to re-engage with its core support. Whilst the old fashioned idea of the ?working classes? (miners, printers, dockers etc) are by and large obsolete, the idea that there is not a vast low skilled white-collar (call centres for eg.), skilled blue-collar workforce (electricians or builders for eg.) and public sector workers that could replace this voting bloc is just misguided. Labour is the natural home for these voters and it is up to us not only to fashion policies that appeal to them but also to build policies from a sound ideological base that still, at its heart, has the interests of the employee rather than the employer at heart.

This perhaps begins to answer why I desire ideological ?zeal?. Perhaps that is a loaded phrase. As a Conservative you are essentially ideologically empty unless you follow Thatcherite economics. Conservatism, as any A-Level student will tell you, is an anti-ideology bucking change and seeking to conserve the status quo. But more than this, and as Ed Miliband has highlighted, the fact that New Labour was an ideologically empty project meant that it rapidly ran out of policies. It had been established to get the Labour Party into power but once there they did not possess sufficient zeal to carry out a truly progressive mandate.

I agree that aside from John McDonnell and now Diane Abbott, the other candidates have been notable by their silence in defining or detailing any clear centre-left politics or outlining the core tenets of their belief system that they wish to exercise politically. A sorry situation. But I do not think that such opportunists as the LibDems would be the source of such arguments.

Your final paragraph sums up my feelings entirely. I want my politicians to lead as much as listen. To be thinkers, to lay out plans and schemes with clear links to ideological planks and when they are radical, unpopular or met with confusion, to educate and explain and convince. A politician with convictions, then. What a rare beast in the 21st century.

[Huguenot]

Hi dc, sorry about the lack of clarity.

I was trying to compare the number of people voting compared with the number of people paying taxes.

To make that calculation I used the 'full time' employment figure, since I assumed (incorrectly or not) that those working part time for a hundred quid a week rarely breach the annual income tax threshold.

The full time employment figures in the latest document you showed came in at 21m, so although my 19m figures might have been a little out of date they weren't far off.

Just as an aside on david carnell's post, most of the skilled blue collar workers in the building or plumbing trade I've met during my house renovation years were self-employed and staunchly conservative.

[vinceayre]

The only way Labour got elected was because they had a conservative leader to be PM, without that they are unelectable in England.

[MitchK]

So the nominations are in for the Labour leadership contest. I'm delighted to see that Diane Abbott has made it this far. I believe she is in favour of tax breaks for those parents who send their kids to private schools, since she does this herself. It is very generous of parents who do this as it means less pressure on places at comprehensive schools.

[david_carnell]

Ignoring MitchK's facetiousness the nominations are in:

David Miliband

Ed Miliband

Ed Balls

Andy Burnham

Diane Abbott

For those interested in attending a list of current hustings can be found here. I shall be at the Fabian Society on Monday night and will report back.

I think John McDonnell should be applauded for his selfless withdrawal from the contest allowing Abbott to progress with the help of his supporters. Abbott is much more personable and it'll be interesting to see how popular she is with the unions and rank-and-file members like myself. Personally, I like her, but the elephant in the room of the sending her son to public school and her ludicrous support of homeopathy and other woo is suspect. On other political issues she is a sound and experienced campaigner.

Andy Burnham is the dark horse of the group. An amiable scouser he could be a real danger to the Milibands. Out of the two, I think Ed the more likely to prosper. Despite being untrue, he is seen as less tarred by the brush of the New Labour project than his older brother. However, Miliband Snr already has a powerful political machine in operation and it'll be difficult to bring down.

It's going to be a tight contest, of that I'm certain, and may well come down to 2nd, 3rd, 4th and even 5th preference voting.

Sadly it'll all be over by Day 1 of the Party conference in September. This is a disappointment. With parliament in recess there would easily have been time to extend the contest into the autumn and allow the conference to be a grand hustings. Instead it will become a coronation event. Disappointing. The NEC should take a long hard look at themselves.

[????]

Current betting (Decimal)

David M 1.71

Ed M 4.4

Ed B 11.5

Andy B 12

Diane A 44

So the bookies are giving it to David

[Loz]

Diane Abbott's nomination: fabulous step forward for black women or patronising tokenism? Discuss...

[Marmora Man]

Tokenism and a bid by D Miliband for the "oh isn't he fair - letting his supporters nominate Diane" vote.

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

Stop doing bloody decimals.

I vote for Balls - the wordplay is endless.

[SteveT]

Marmora Man wrote:- The big question is surely HOW can we provide for the weaker etc etc?

That puts politics in it's place, it does not matter greatly who is ruining, sorry running the country.

Politics is irrelevant if you have no money to put any policies into action.

Very few are asking HOW this may be done, and fewer are suggesting an answer.

Anyone in business should be able to explain that,

until we produce for the same cost and the same quality as China and India we will be in decline.

As for politicians they are all superfluous to requirements until economic stability is assured.

[Marmora Man]

SteveT - Britain cannot and is unlikely ever to produce the goods that China and India make for the same cost and same quality. Those countries have comparative advantages in terms of units costs (labour, exchange rates, access to raw materials) that UK cannot match - and probably (I hope) wouldn't want to match given Ghina's current stance on civil liberties.

However, UK does have comparative advantages in other areas - innovation, inventions, scientific research, brokering trade, economic ingenuity and so on. The whole concept of economic globalism depends upon countries recognising this and producing and selling their own goods and services in areas where they have the edge and buying in goods and services from other countries that have different skills and advantages.

Politicians do have a role - to manage the country efficiently while maximising the country's ability to optimise its comparative advantages by not fettering it with high costs, unnecessary bureaucracy and inefficient public services.

[SteveT]

Marmora Man wrote:-

Politicians do have a role - to manage the country efficiently while maximising the country's ability to optimise its comparative advantages by not fettering it with high costs, unnecessary bureaucracy and inefficient public services.

I'm sure we all wonder when they will start.

Politicians and civil servants seem to grow in number year on year,

I wonder why there is no one employed to curb it?

I think I have unearthed an irony.

[david_carnell]

This speech is one of the reasons I wished John Cruddas had stood.

I'm off to the Fabian Society tonight to hear all the contenders at a hustings. I shall report back (for those who are interested).

[DaveR]

Great speech, but not so easy to write a manifesto on the back of it.

This is the closest it gets to a policy statement:

"First, it is a covenant of reciprocity: ?of doing unto others as you would have them do unto you?. People give to others ? as good citizens, workers, neighbours and parents. In return they are given a fair and just tax system, universal social protection, a minimum income entitlement.

A living wage, secure employment and pensions. Homes for people to live in.

Second, the covenant is for an ethical economy, organised for human well being and equality. That means reform of the banks. Securing capital and employment in localities. Reform of corporate governance to make business accountable.

Third, the covenant is for liberty. Strong democratic cultures for active participation and deliberative decision-making. Freedom of information, and a plural media ownership. Civil liberties cherished, not given away cheaply. Now a new covenant will not work top-down."

Wonderfully aspirational, but what does it all actually mean?

Take a few examples; what is an economy "organised for human wellbeing and equality"? How does it differ from what we have now? "Homes for people to live in" is an understandable desire, but does that mean more public housing, subsidised private housing, interventions in the market to make housing more affordable? "Reform of corporate governance to make business acountable" - accountable to who? The owners of the business? The government? Me?

More fundamentally, he claims a novel role for a putative future Labour government i.e. as "the defender of society against the power of the state". I'm not sure exactly what this means, but it has a libertarian flavour that is utterly at odds with the current reality of Labour politics, and, fundamentally, with the history of the Labour movement in the UK.

The speech can be read as being supportive of almost any set of policies between that of the current coalition, and that of Cuba under Castro. I'd prefer something rooted a little more in reality.