General Election 2015

[Jeremy]

Green Goose Wrote:

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

> Govt has to keep cutting expenditure until the budget balances.

That's what the tories tell us. But when they simultaneously pledge to lower taxes, and arguably don't do enough to counter corporate and HNWI tax avoidance, it is easy to see that balancing the budget is not their only agenda. Besides, when it comes to balancing the deficit, spending is just one piece of the puzzle. You also need to grow the economy, and ensure taxes are set at the right levels to cover our expenditure.

Saying that.. I don't necessarily buy the theory that the tories/coalition did a terrible job with the economy. While it's easy to say that other countries which opted for more sutained stimulus have fared better, it's hard to say what would have happened in the UK under an alternative strategy, especially in a country which is so dependant on financial services. The economy is growing (just), employment is increasing, the markets have renewed faith in gilts and UK stocks. It is an unremarkable performance but far from disastrous.

[JohnL]

robbin Wrote:

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

> Come back 'Ed, all is forgiven!

>

> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2308381/Vo

> ters-dismissed-trash-1m-Ibiza-villa-called-White-H

> ouse-credibility-crisis-threatening-Labours-Obama-

> Chuka-Umunna.html

Like Cameron - he'd just be a hollow frontman

OK -If the people behind you are good :)

[miga]

..

[david_carnell]

Umunna suffers from what's known as the third-question problem.

He's great on stuff like Question Time or This Morning because you only ever skim the surface of policy issues but under sustained questioning, i.e. on a third question, he begins to get flustered and unravel. Unusual considering his legal background that he appears so ill-briefed or unable to understand.

Also, for a party continually criticised (by many here) as being too urbane, too liberal, too metropolitan, too Islington dinner-party and not in touch with your "normal voter" then I don't see Chuka as the answer. He's not going to wow them in Grimsby with his Ibiza anthems and sharp suits. Then again, Cameron seems to manage it....

A shame Dan Jarvis isn't standing but for good reasons. Burnham won't appeal to middle-class southerners, Cooper lacks personality and Kendall is too inexperienced.

It's not an easy job description:

Clever - but not intellectual

Have urban appeal - but not too metropolitan

Have northern/midlands heartland appeal - but don't scare the home counties

Be photogenic but not smarmy

Inspire the grass roots with genuine left of centre appeal but don't put of the "aspirational" voter

Get the unions money but not their public support

Politically experienced but not tainted by past failures

If you can find this person, please let Labour HQ know....

[Blah Blah]

Green Goose, cutting to balance ultimately means no safety net for those at the bottom, no healthcare for all, no education for all. Is that where you really want us to go? We have ALWAYS borrowed money and we are still here! BTW you conveniently forget the trillions borrowed to bail out the banks. It's not really about Labour or Conservative, it's about the kind of economy we have. Growth depends entirely on debt, from buying your home to capital projects. You can't have it both ways. Cheap credit is the reason for most growth since the 80's and we are ALL part of it. The entire free market economy depends on it.

Why you pick on the unemployed is beyond me. 60% of social security budget is spent on the over 65s, in pensions and other benefits. Those have been protected from any cuts by THIS government. The next highest spend is on families in work with children. They need those tax credits and housing benefit because their low wages don't cover basic living costs. I think you need to better inform yourself in the true spend of welfare before you make sweeping statements about work shy people making lifestyle choices. Meanwhile no mention of tax avoidance and the recent scandals around capital gains tax.

I broadly agree with rahrah's economic analysis (and the figures ARE out there to see for yourself) and the point someone made that the wider public don't know enough about economics. I was one of those people a year ago too, but decided to learn more and it WAS a revelation. It was the point at which I saw for myself what a merry song and dance the Coalition had led us all on. But Labour can only blame themselves for not countering that effectively enough. I also agree with Jeremy and also think that Labour in power would have seen some recovery too. We were never in the same place as Greece, or Italy or Spain etc.

[Blah Blah]

I'm with you David. There will be someone but whether or not the Labour party can find them is another matter.

[Otta]

david_carnell Wrote:

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

> he appears so ill-briefed or

> unable to understand.

That'll be all the weed he's not proud of smoking as a teenager.

[JohnL]

The issue with being in control and knowing every aspect of policy is

you then are micro managing

Gordon Brown did this - IMHO Cameron doesn't - he just repeats the same thing.

There's nothing wrong with saying my excellent team are on this and will brief me

(if a question is jumped on you) - if it's pre-planned the team should have briefed

already.

[JohnL]

Blah Blah Wrote:

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

> I'm with you David. There will be someone but

> whether or not the Labour party can find them is

> another matter.

Labour is a very big party.

They should take time to select a leader I think.

[david_carnell]

JohnL Wrote:

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

> The issue with being in control and knowing every

> aspect of policy is

> you then are micro managing

>

> Gordon Brown did this - IMHO Cameron doesn't - he

> just repeats the same thing.

>

> There's nothing wrong with saying my excellent

> team are on this and will brief me

> (if a question is jumped on you) - if it's

> pre-planned the team should have briefed

> already.

Firstly, I'm talking about his own shadow cabinet business brief, not just general policy.

Secondly, I don't think a leader will do well if he simply says "I don't know but I'm sure someone in my team does" - they'd be savaged by the media.

You can possess the ability to grasp complex policy issues without micro-managing.

[the-e-dealer]

The thing is Boris CAN NEVER Come up with the detail.

How about Boris can you give the detail of the last policy you worked on today please?

I doubt if he could even answer that.

[????]

Dear old Millwall supporting once of these parishes Rod

And so now we have to suffer the epic delusions, temper tantrums and hissy fits of the metro-left. They simply cannot believe how you scumbags could have got it so wrong last Thursday, you morons. You vindictive, selfish morons. That has been the general response from all of the people, the liberal middle-class lefties, who have cheerfully contributed towards making the once-great Labour party effectively unelectable. You lot voted Tory out of fear ? because you are stupid, stupid people. The Conservatives ran a ?negative? campaign and, because you are either simply horrible human beings, or just thick, you fell for it.

That?s been the subtext of most of the bien-pensants, when they?re not out screaming with fury in the streets, stamping their little feet and daubing ?Tory scum? on war memorials. It was the subtext of Ed Miliband?s magnificently patronising and deluded analysis that Labour (i.e. Ed Miliband) lost the election but ?did not lose the argument?. No Ed, you lost both. You lost the election because you lost the argument. And also because lots of people, including members of your family, thought you were a ludicrous creature increasingly resembling one of those confections in a Dr Seuss book for kiddies. My favourite little temper strop, though, came from a woman called ? Rebecca Roache, who is a lecturer at Royal Holloway. Tory voters are akin to racists, sexists and homophobes, she asserted on her blog, before adding that she had ?defriended? people on Facebook who had posted links to pro-Tory pages. ?I?m tired of reasoned debate,? she added.

In what subject does Becca bestow upon her students the fruits of her incalculable wisdom? Remember, she?s tired of reasoned debate. Yep, of course ? Philosophy. Better give up your job then, you fatuous cow. If you want to know more about this woman?s research pedigree, here?s an excerpt from her webpage: ?In my MPhil thesis I argued that objects are composed of temporal parts. In my PhD thesis I considered the conceptual possibility of beings that (like us) have rich mental lives, can self-refer, and are self-conscious and self concerned, but (unlike us) are not persons.? What are these strange beings, then ? Tories?

The sad thing for me is that aside from a handful of northern MPs and some embittered Blairites in the south, Labour really does not think that it lost the argument. They are in a state of complete denial. Occasionally one hears a platitude from someone or other about how the party needs to ?reconnect? with voters, but there is no conception of how this reconnection might occur. Of course, it most certainly does need to ?reconnect? with voters. But equally, it also needs to estrange voters like Rebecca Roache as soon as is humanly possible. If Labour is to make a comeback then it will be as a party for which Rebecca could not possibly bring herself to vote, not even if hell froze over. If Ed Miliband, too, could not bring himself to vote for it, so much the better. Because otherwise Labour will be left as a party of the affluent, secular, achingly liberal London middle classes ? plus all those minorities (ethnic, gender, transgendered and so on) who have not yet decided to vote Green. Deconstruct last Thursday?s poll and you see a party that does very well in the capital, but has a rapidly diminishing appeal elsewhere.

Look at the Ukip vote north of the Home Counties. Massive and growing. Just imagine if Ukip were as credible as the SNP ? Labour would be down to 80 or 90 seats, if that. It is all very well for Labour supporters to console themselves with the fact that much more than half of all Scottish people voted for a supposedly ?progressive? party, even if it wasn?t their party. But that is not entirely why Sturgeon et al did so well ? the clue is in the name. Scottish National Party. Aside from the economic leftism, the SNP succeeded because it tapped into a feeling of pride and history and nationhood, as well as a visceral dislike for London. But talk about a sense of national pride and history to the London left and they will tell you it?s all a case of false consciousness and, like religion, to be ignored or derided. More fool them.

According to the pollster Peter Kellner, Ukip?s support base is 61 per cent working class ? way more than Labour, the party that was set up to represent the working-class. This is a very recent development; according to the same set of statistics, ex-Labour voters migrating to Ukip trebled over the last couple of years. Bear that in mind when you look at the polling results in such constituencies as Nuneaton, Stockton South, the Vale of Clwyd, Sunderland and countless, countless others.

If Labour is to continue to exist as a major force, rather than as a gradually deliquescing rump, it needs to adopt policies which bring those people back. The Blairites are correct that Miliband alienated the aspirational working class ? largely, I think, because he felt no liking or empathy for them. But that is not the half of it. A clear understanding that there is a deserving poor and an undeserving poor is crucial; people who do the right thing, but are nonetheless impoverished, and watch others who do not do the right thing thrive on benefits, dislike Labour?s lazy and ignorant amalgamation of the two groups.

A strong policy on immigration is vital ? nothing has adversely affected the working class to quite the same degree as the enormous importing of cheap labour. So, too, a robust line against radical Islam ? you think it?s left-wing to support such a creed? ? and a disavowal of multiculturalism might win back a few votes, too. A respect for Britain?s history and pride in its place in the world, support for the traditional family unit and the admission that there are places beyond the North Circular which are important too ? ah, but I?m going too far. People voted Tory, or Ukip, because they were stupid. Let?s leave it at that, huh?

[Jeremy]

A disavowal of multiculturalism? Support for the traditional family unit?

[david_carnell]

C'mon Jezza, Quids put in the disclaimer about retweets not an indication of agreement.

Oh.

Wait.

[robbin]

???? - that sums it up nicely. Milliband and his cronies are deluded (or even if the penny has now dropped have backed themselves into a position they cannot easily get out of) but I think others in the party can see the reality of the situation. It is too early to say whether they will really have a proper review and change course, but it will be interesting to see what happens.

What is clear is that Ed and his supporters squandered a golden opportunity to get into power with an epic miscalculation (dating back to when the union block vote put him in place despite party members votes and the votes of MPs against him). Now was their best time to win - the Lib Dems blocked the long overdue boundary changes and those will now happen and will alone make it harder for Ed's successor to win next time.

[Otta]

Quids a lot of what you are saying makes total sense to me, but you do have a bit of a habit of putting words in to people's mouths / changing the context/meaning of what they say.

???? Wrote:

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

> Ed Miliband?s magnificently

> patronising and deluded analysis that Labour (i.e.

> Ed Miliband) lost the election but ?did not lose

> the argument?. No Ed, you lost both. You lost the

> election because you lost the argument.

Miliband said (whilst addressing his closest staff and supporters directly after a massive defeat)

"Today you?ll feel disappointed, even bleak but while we may have lost the election, the argument of our campaign will not go away: the issue of our unequal country will not go away"

He was saying that to / for them.

So 1. you are talking about different arguments, and 2. losing the election DOESN'T make him wrong in his beliefs, and 3, he didn't say he's won an argument, he said it doesn't just go away.

Miliband's (big) mistake was fighting the election based on his moral compass and belief that the country is unfair (it is). I've always said that I thought he was a decent man of principle, even when I was very unsure of who I'd vote for. I stand by that, he just wasn't someone who was seeing the bigger picture in terms of what it takes to win an election.

One could argue that those who are better at winning elections (by fighting over the middle ground) make a point of not seeing the bigger picture in terms on inequality, because clearly that's not a good enough vote winner.

I agree with lots of the points you make, and more and more I despair of some of the "lefty" stuff I am seeing on social media, but equally I despair of our country when all left wing ideals are just swept away as silly and not worth discussing in an election campaign.

I strongly suspect that you're flaming a bit here for a giggle, and I know that many many people voted Tory because they'd weighed things up and decided that was best for them / the country. But I will never stop believing that large numbers vote as directed by the (largely right wing these days) press. That's why so many voted Labour when the Sun told them too for a while.

[JohnL]

david_carnell Wrote:

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

> JohnL Wrote:

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

> -----

> > The issue with being in control and knowing

> every

> > aspect of policy is

> > you then are micro managing

> >

> > Gordon Brown did this - IMHO Cameron doesn't -

> he

> > just repeats the same thing.

> >

> > There's nothing wrong with saying my excellent

> > team are on this and will brief me

> > (if a question is jumped on you) - if it's

> > pre-planned the team should have briefed

> > already.

>

>

> Secondly, I don't think a leader will do well if

> he simply says "I don't know but I'm sure someone

> in my team does" - they'd be savaged by the

> media.

Probably - but that's something wrong with the UK media IMHO.

I seem to be the one of few people looking for something more than

media ability in a PM - inspiration, vision, gravitas etc.

[JohnL]

robbin Wrote:

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

> ???? - that sums it up nicely. Milliband and his

> cronies are deluded (or even if the penny has now

> dropped have backed themselves into a position

> they cannot easily get out of) but I think others

> in the party can see the reality of the situation.

> It is too early to say whether they will really

> have a proper review and change course, but it

> will be interesting to see what happens.

>

> What is clear is that Ed and his supporters

> squandered a golden opportunity to get into power

> with an epic miscalculation (dating back to when

> the union block vote put him in place despite

> party members votes and the votes of MPs against

> him). Now was their best time to win - the Lib

> Dems blocked the long overdue boundary changes and

> those will now happen and will alone make it

> harder for Ed's successor to win next time.

But Nicola Sturgeon is far more radical IMHO - and she runs a

country - just a different country.

Why is England so different (Gower is Little England beyond Swansea :) )

[Blah Blah]

We also have to remember that the pecentage of voting share between the Tories and Labour was JUST 6%. So whilst Miliband got the image/ policy/ message etc wrong, it can't really be argued that the Tories got it absolutely right either. For all the delusion of various Labour MPs their were an equal number of Tories who expected Cameron to fail (Boris being one of them I suspect). For me that reads as a time of not totally understood change in thinking from the public, not understood on either side of the main parties.

In light of that I think Labour are in a better position than they may think to come back. They will have to get their new leader right, but it is no way the end of them, as it may have been had Cameron won with an overwheming majority. No-one knows what will happen over the next five years, to the economy or anything. And a Europe referendum is promised too. That will be a huge game changer depending on the result and the impacts, if any, of us leaving the EU. It's not going to be an easy ride for the Tories by any means.

[JohnL]

Someone did say 900 votes between a hung parliament and the Tory majority we got.

Gower was 27 majority for instance - that's 14 voters (Tory to Labour).

[Louisa]

Blah Blah Wrote:

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

> We also have to remember that the pecentage of

> voting share between the Tories and Labour was

> JUST 6%.

I think that's a little too simplistic Blah, and possibly optimistic.

If you take away Scotland (where the Tories were down anyway) and then take Wales separately too and just look at England, the Tories were on 41% of the total vote, a solid 10% ahead of Labour on 31%. If you then add UKIP to that right wing block who polled 14.6% in England, you have over half of the electorate voting for two centre-right parties.

The result in England in terms of seats was Conservatives 319, Labour 206, UKIP 1, Greens 1. There's no getting away from the fact that if you remove the traditionally left leaning countries of Scotland & Wales and just look at England, the country has quite dramatically shifted to the right between 2010 and 2015.

Louisa.

[Blah Blah]

That's just massaging figures to your own ends Louisa. It was a UK election so every vote in the UK counts and parliament works for the entire UK, or should at least. We know there's more Tory support in the south and more support for other parties in the north. It does not make us a Tory nation. That's also exactly why parties like the SNP have done so well. People feel completely ignored by a south centric serving government.

It still maintains that there is nothing like the support shown for the Tory landslides of the 80s and that urban metropolitain centres (where most people live) are still Labour heartlands.

[Earl Aelfheah]

yeah, if you ignore Wales and Scotland and add in UKIP and ignore the greens, and maybe forget about London, and possibly Liverpool and Manchester then.....

[Blah Blah]

Maybe I can discount the home countries and show that Labour actually did better than the real figures show as well?

[Earl Aelfheah]

The truth is that the Tories played to fears about immigration, to the perception that the financial crash was down to Labour overspending, and to some people's suspicion that their are people living lavish lifestyles paid for by benefits. This doesn't wash with those living in metropolitan areas, because they can see the benefits of immigration (and/or are immigrants themselves), see the reality of those living on benefits (due to the cheek by jowl nature of London communities)and are probably more concerned about Labours main election issue, cost of living..... In my opinion.