General Election 2015

[Loz]

Jessie Wrote:

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

> Loving the work of Otta and Blah Blah. Hope my son

> doesn't end up being taught by Uncleglen.

You'd really not want someone teaching your son because they vote differently to you? That's kind of enacting the rather unsavoury claims made earlier.

[????]

I see a bunch of largely pretty posh sounding revolutionaries (maybe a 1000) are sticking it to the fascist democraticaly elected govt this afternoon, including graffitiing the woman's war memorial, right now under such truly laughable posts as "the insurrection starts now"

[Otta]

Really? FFS, thisnisba why no one will take the left seriously. Ducks.

[Louisa]

It gets worse. Charlotte Church was out protesting in Cardiff this afternoon with a bunch of her friends with homemade placards. When will washed up celebrities learn than mouthing off isn't helpful to the political cause, it's just yet another unwelcome distraction, reinforcing the image of sore loser.

Louisa.

[aquarius moon]

Everyone is getting so uptight but did your vote actually count?

Peckham/Camberwell, Dulwich/W.Norwood were safe seats so no, because we voted for Labour and still lost.

It just shows how well this voting system works.:(

And that people living in this area are not being treated too well by the government.

[Blah Blah]

Yes indeed. Seeing how voting share translates into seats for the parties is eye opening reading.

And just to add that whne UKIP did so well in the Euro elections, it was pointed out that under the parliamentary system they'd make little impact.

[????]

Anyway THIS sort of thing is what the Labour Party need to be saying not Owen Jones'/Polly T's class warfare to get me listening again

"In spite of our superior ground operation and the tremendous efforts of members and candidates, Thursday was a devastating result for Labour. Ed Miliband had put his finger on one of the biggest issues of our time: the need for prosperity to extend beyond the top 1%. He had grown in stature over the campaign. The Tories were seen as out of touch and for the few. Yet they ended up with a majority. We won 100 fewer seats than them: our worst election performance in almost three decades.

Ed was too hard on himself in assuming all the responsibility for the scale of our defeat; all of us on the front line are implicated. So, as the dust settles, on the result it?s time to confront things which, in retrospect, we should have done years ago. As a political family, we are in shock, but must channel our disappointment into the work of rebuilding and renewal. That starts with having an honest look in the mirror and asking : why did we lose?

Some point to Scotland, where we lost 40 of our 41 seats to the SNP. It is true, the rise of nationalism there was a factor that has deep, cultural roots. But our collapse north of the border was compounded by our failure to keep the Conservatives from holding and taking seats in England. We targeted 80 Tory-held seats in England, but made a net gain of just four. Of the 10 seats in the three southern regions outside London which we won in 2010, we actually lost two. It was in England that David Cameron won his majority and put a Labour-led government out of reach.

Why did we do so badly there? First, we spoke to our core voters but not to aspirational, middle-class ones. We talked about the bottom and top of society, about the minimum wage and zero-hour contracts, about mansions and non-doms. But we had too little to say to the majority of people in the middle.

Second, we allowed the impression to arise that we were not on the side of those who are doing well. We talked a lot ? quite rightly ? about the need to address ?irresponsible? capitalism, for more political will to tackle inequality, poverty and injustice (and we must never give the appearance that we are relaxed about them). But we talked too little about those creating wealth and doing the right thing.

That?s why I?ve always argued you cannot be pro-business by beating up on the terms and conditions of their workers and the trade unions that play an important role representing them. But you cannot be pro good jobs without being pro the businesses that create them. In spite of the fact that our policy offer was pro-business, the rhetoric often suggested otherwise. And sometimes we made it sound like we saw taxing people as a good in itself, rather than a means to an end.

Third, we treated parts of the electorate as no-go areas. We tried to cobble together a 35% coalition of our core vote, disaffected Lib Dems, Greens and Ukip supporters. The terrible results were the failure of that approach writ large. We need a different, big-tent approach ? one in which no one is too rich or poor to be part of our party. Most of all, we need to start taking large numbers of votes directly from the Conservatives.

Fourth, we did not tackle the legacy of our recent past so did not allay the concerns some voters had about us. Of course, the last Labour government should not have been running (an albeit small and historically unremarkable) deficit before the financial crash. But we should have done far more to challenge the ludicrous claim that our investment in public services caused it. The Tories conveniently ignore the fact they signed up to our spending plans before the crash, we inherited a debt-to-GDP ratio of 42% from them in 1997 and had got this down to 37% by 2008; and, under 18 years of Tory rule before 1997, the deficit averaged 3.2% of GDP, whereas it was 1.3% from 1997 to 2007.

The failure to nail this argument allowed doubts to arise about our competence. So did our reluctance, until late in the last parliament, to sufficiently illustrate that we took deficit reduction seriously. We should have shouted louder about there be nothing progressive about spending more paying debt interest to City investors and others every year than we invest in our housing or transport.

Fifth, as the party that believes in government?s ability to make people?s lives better, we should have been the ones championing a smart, efficient public sector that uses technology, co-operative and mutual principles and a pragmatic ?what works? approach to get things done. By way of an example, consider Transport for London?s decision to make its data freely available to developers. The move has spawned the creation of some 200 travel apps by tech companies, improving users? experiences and adding tens of millions of pounds to the economy.

Decentralising the state is a big part of this challenge. In government, we were the architects of devolution, but in opposition ceded that ground to George Osborne and his Northern Powerhouse agenda. We must now go much further: pushing for a massive devolution of power to our cities, regions and towns and, by extension, reducing what is done in Whitehall by consolidating and merging departments and cutting the number of ministers by at least a third.

Sixth, the divergence of different parts of the UK and voters? lack of trust in politics require bigger solutions than those we put forward. We must be the party of drastic political reform. We should be saying: it is time for parliament to move out of the relic that is the Palace of Westminster and into a new, modern, accessible site fit for purpose, for a serious debate about the electoral system, for an elected Senate in place of the outdated House of Lords. We should start by changing our party: cultivating networks of supporters and civic society organisations and making it more of a force for progressive change in people?s communities every day, not just every five years. It?s worth noting that if Labour had as many members as the SNP, relative to population, it would have 1.2 million.

Finally, we needed a clearer vision of Britain in the world. Labour is the party of internationalism and openness. It is up to us to explain how global change can be harnessed, how we in Britain can use our strengths ? our universities, industry and innovation, our diverse population, our global alliances (especially the EU) ? to make life here better. It is also up to us to fight the root causes of anti-immigration sentiment, like the housing crisis, rather than pandering to it.

So as painful as Thursday?s result is, the direction we need to taketo rebuild is clear. We must stop looking to the past and focus on ensuring everyone has a stake in the future. Our vision as a party must start with the aspirations of voters: to get on and up in the world, to see their children and grandchildren do better than they did, to get that better job, to move from renting to owning, to take the family on holiday, to move from that flat to that house with a garden. That means offering competence, optimism not fatalism, an end to machine politics, an economic credo that is both pro-worker and pro-business and, most of all, a politics that starts with what unites us as a country rather than what divides us. Only then will we be able to build the fairer, more equal, democratic and sustainable society that led us to join our party in the first place. Our defeat was on the scale of 1992, but our revival can be on the scale of 1997, and just as rapid if we do what needs to be done. Labour is down, but not out. We must ? and will ? recover, and win again.

Chuka Umunna is Labour MP for Streatham

[Louisa]

Whilst I acknowledge your frustration with our electoral system am, I have to fundamentally disagree with you. The system produces stability, even if it doesn't always produce the results we want. Yes we have to put up with someone most of us in this seat didn't vote for, but there will be a seat a few miles from here where over 50% of the electorate did vote for them. It's just the way it goes. There's always 2020. I'm sure we will survive five years one way or another.

Louisa.

[hpsaucey]

aquarius moon Wrote:

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

> Everyone is getting so uptight but did your vote

> actually count?

> Peckham/Camberwell, Dulwich/W.Norwood were safe

> seats so no, because we voted for Labour and still

> lost.

> It just shows how well this voting system

> works.:(

> And that people living in this area are not being

> treated too well by the government.

Independence for London perhaps? Everyone else wants a stab at it ...

[Blah Blah]

"Why did we do so badly there? First, we spoke to our core voters but not to aspirational, middle-class ones. We talked about the bottom and top of society, about the minimum wage and zero-hour contracts, about mansions and non-doms. But we had too little to say to the majority of people in the middle."

Spot on ????. To win an election in the UK you have to win the support of this group of voters. It is said that just 150 seats decide elections in the UK (maybe more after the SNP tsunami) but those 150 seats are definitely middle ground. And Chuka is being tipped as a possible new leader for Labour too.

[aquarius moon]

Louisa Wrote:

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

> There's always 2020. I'm sure we will

> survive five years one way or another.

>

> Louisa.

For some it will be easy, for some it won't.

Some will survive, some won't.

We shall see. So let's just hope.

[DulwichFox]

For Gods sake.

Just make the most of what time

You have left.

There are babies that survive for just a few hours.

It happened to a friend of mine.

It makes very little difference who's in charge here.

Just spare a thought for those in other parts of the World.

You life ain't that bad.

People in Nepal have been left with no thing.

Foxy

[Earl Aelfheah]

Blah Blah Wrote:

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

> "Why did we do so badly there? First, we spoke to

> our core voters but not to aspirational,

> middle-class ones. We talked about the bottom and

> top of society, about the minimum wage and

> zero-hour contracts, about mansions and non-doms.

> But we had too little to say to the majority of

> people in the middle."

>

> Spot on ????. To win an election in the UK you

> have to win the support of this group of voters.

> It is said that just 150 seats decide elections in

> the UK (maybe more after the SNP tsunami) but

> those 150 seats are definitely middle ground. And

> Chuka is being tipped as a possible new leader for

> Labour too.

This assumes that those in the middle are only concerned with their own narrow self interest, "what are you going to do for ME".

[Mick Mac]

What Foxy said. Get over yourselves with your melodramatic nonsense. Anyone who thought life would be better under Labour has to accept that they were in the minority.

[MrBen]

Like it or not tho..a huge majority are... a lifelong Labour voter I know went Tory this time round. But his reasons were pretty simple...he's the so called hard working squeezed middle...on a joint household income of ?50k with no disposable at the end of the month. He has a young family and had calculated that a Conservative government would give him an extra 1500 quid a year. Enough to let him take his family on holiday for the first time. You'd be living in lala land if you didn't think that dynamic influenced Thursdays result.

[MrBen]

Cross posted with Mick.

[????]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> Blah Blah Wrote:

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

> -----

> > "Why did we do so badly there? First, we spoke

> to

> > our core voters but not to aspirational,

> > middle-class ones. We talked about the bottom

> and

> > top of society, about the minimum wage and

> > zero-hour contracts, about mansions and

> non-doms.

> > But we had too little to say to the majority of

> > people in the middle."

> >

> > Spot on ????. To win an election in the UK you

> > have to win the support of this group of

> voters.

> > It is said that just 150 seats decide elections

> in

> > the UK (maybe more after the SNP tsunami) but

> > those 150 seats are definitely middle ground.

> And

> > Chuka is being tipped as a possible new leader

> for

> > Labour too.

>

> This assumes that those in the middle are only

> concerned with their own narrow self interest,

> "what are you going to do for ME".

How about those people who think that an aspirational society - a hand up rather than hand down one - is better for everyone? You're just repeating the idiotic Marxist framed argument that aspiration is somehow selfish that explains why Labour just got massacred. Patronising top down crap.

[Otta]

I said straight away that I'd like to see Chuka as new Labour leader. Reading that has confirmed that.

[Jah Lush]

[Blah Blah]

Mick Mac Wrote:

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

> What Foxy said. Get over yourselves with your

> melodramatic nonsense. Anyone who thought life

> would be better under Labour has to accept that

> they were in the minority.

Not really. There was only 6% between the voting share of Tory and Labour and the Tories polled around 37% of the vote which means that 63% of those who voted didn't vote for them. So that makes those who voted Troy in the minority clearly, hence calls for voting reform. Labour took 31% of the vote btw.

[Blah Blah]

Otta Wrote:

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

> I said straight away that I'd like to see Chuka as

> new Labour leader. Reading that has confirmed

> that.

There's no doubting his intelligence. It's just a question of whether the public will like him, given that the press make so much out of image these days. I suspect the north will see him as another London-centric MP. Andy Burnham is equally capable but again there's that image thing with the South seeing him as a Northern lefty. So I suspect Chuka's time is not now (but definitely one for the future). Labour for now have to find someone that can narrow that division accross those they seek to represent. And the Tories are now likely to get through the boundary changes that the Lib Dems blocked, making it even harder for Labour to come back. What was clear from the election results, is that the Tories also took votes from Labour, particularly in marginals. Again I think it comes back to the perception that Labour were only for the poorest, against the richest and offered nothing for the middle.

What also suprises me is that after the event suddenly there are many Labour MPs mirroring Chuka's views. Why do they wait for the inevitable before airing them? I never understand this about parties, sticking with leaders and directions that many within think or worse still know are taking them to defeat. Gordon Brown was absolutely a case in point. No-one, not even in his own party thought he would or could win that election.

[Bellenden Belle]

Hope he's done his homework and taken into account the possible cuts on the horizon...means testing child benefit could mean a cut of ?1750 for a two-child middle income family.

The hand giveth and the hand taketh away....

MrBen Wrote:

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

> Like it or not tho..a huge majority are... a

> lifelong Labour voter I know went Tory this time

> round. But his reasons were pretty simple...he's

> the so called hard working squeezed middle...on a

> joint household income of ?50k with no disposable

> at the end of the month. He has a young family and

> had calculated that a Conservative government

> would give him an extra 1500 quid a year. Enough

> to let him take his family on holiday for the

> first time. You'd be living in lala land if you

> didn't think that dynamic influenced Thursdays

> result.

[Jah Lush]

Well played the BBC graphics fella.

http://i1369.photobucket.com/albums/ag237/jahlushhead/CEb6Fw1WoAAmnVD_zpsnrqnjrzs.jpg

[malumbu]

Too many posts to follow. Some crumb of comforts. Went into work on Friday and was surprised to see virtually everyone was in a sombre mood. I'd made assumptions that some of the younger generation would be cock a hoop.

Saved myself money by not getting drunk nor having a hangover, as per election night party in 92. I'd already planned for a bad result, but not quite this one.

I work closer with government than any time in my career and can now say with evidence that there are a number of poohs at the top. Not all I hasten to add (watching out for my security clearance, Big Brother). Separately, on both sides of the coalition, there were several I quite liked working with.

Anyway the point of my post is that Heaven 17 should rewrite the lyrics to Facsist Groove Thang. Not saying that the new government is a fascist one, but it would cheer me up.

[Otta]

Bellenden Belle Wrote:

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

> Hope he's done his homework and taken into account

> the possible cuts on the horizon...means testing

> child benefit could mean a cut of ?1750 for a

> two-child middle income family.

>

> The hand giveth and the hand taketh away....

>

>

> MrBen Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Like it or not tho..a huge majority are... a

> > lifelong Labour voter I know went Tory this

> time

> > round. But his reasons were pretty

> simple...he's

> > the so called hard working squeezed middle...on

> a

> > joint household income of ?50k with no

> disposable

> > at the end of the month. He has a young family

> and

> > had calculated that a Conservative government

> > would give him an extra 1500 quid a year.

> Enough

> > to let him take his family on holiday for the

> > first time. You'd be living in lala land if you

> > didn't think that dynamic influenced Thursdays

> > result.

Exactlu BB. MrBen could be describing my family and income in that post, but anywhere we've gained in the past 5 years (slightly less tax to pay), we've lost elsewhere (no more child tax credit). So basically we're worse off (long pay freezes).