General Election 2015

[Louisa]

I don't believe I'm massaging the figures at all. They speak for themselves. Scotland has shifted to the left oddly on a nationalistic ticket, and England has shifted to the right, again as a result of nationalism.

Scotland should be turning to Labour if it's shifting left, it didn't do that. UKIP came second in a string of Labour heartland seats across the north of England. The Tories even increased there vote share significantly in Wales where they had a net gain of +3 seats.

After a term in office the tories should have been down, but they were not, vote share was up in southern England and across the marginals. Labour had a static vote share, increasing only in northern English heartlands and some London marginals. The stats speak for themselves.

If the Labour Party is going to recover, and fast, they need to recognise this.

Louisa.

[DulwichFox]

I believe that economic recovery is not yet achievable.

The Tories being the Governing Party will therefore bear the burden as things are likely to get worse.

Unless they have a magic wand and turn things around, they will be unelectable in 2020.

Labour need to take some careful decisions about there future policies and who they represent.

DulwichFox

[Louisa]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> 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.

Unfortunantely rah, your analysis plays into the hands of the right. That sort of lefty metropolitan view is patronising to the vast majority of centre-left voters who have an entirely different experience, especially those outside of the M25 where unemployment and immigration from Eastern Europe are married up (rightly or wrongly), and they don't think Labour wants to or needs to acknowledge that. This is why such a substantial proportion of the left are bizarrely turning to right wing groups such as the BNP previously, and UKIP this time around. Labour just isn't speaking to them anymore. You can't have that attitude of 'us' and 'them' regarding metro lefties and heartland socialists, it reinforces division. The Tories will be loving it.

Louisa.

[the-e-dealer]

So quids are you saying there was no fear in voting Choice?

[JohnL]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> 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.

it annoyed me a lot that Labour never really defended these charges.

Meaning when that lady challenged EdM over overspending I wanted him to say

'please look at the leaflets being given out now for a detailed repudiation

including information from the then BOE governor'

[miga]

.

[Blah Blah]

Lousia, the Scots did not shift towards the left (and you contradict yourself in that point), they shifted to the right in support of a nationalist party. The SNP are nationalists first, fighting for independence. They election campaign was fought on fighting austerity and last time I checked fighting poverty wasn't necessarily a left wing issue, or would you have us all believe that no one on the right cares about such things?

But I'm glad to see you at least acknowlege that the Tories only improved mainly in their traditional heartlands (and that's where the swing actually was). Marginals do go back and forth - so nothing significant there for me. I'd hardly call it a significant swing to the right. It's a far cry from the real gains made by the Tory party in the 80s. If anything it shouws only a polarisation between core voters of both the main parties with the SNP gains and libdem losses deciding things. So a nation of three halves if you like.

[Blah Blah]

Completely agree Miga. Miga's failure was to fight Cameron on the economy from the off. Not to wait for an election campaign.

[miga]

.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Yeah, I agree too Miga. The conservatives managed to fix the narrative aroun the crash whilst Labour were still reeling / naval gazing following their previous election loss. They then jut seemed to give up trying to challenge the prevailing story

[Jeremy]

Blah Blah Wrote:

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

> Lousia, the Scots did not shift towards the left

> (and you contradict yourself in that point), they

> shifted to the right in support of a nationalist

> party. The SNP are nationalists first, fighting

> for independence.

I don't think that's right. Nationalism is not inherently right wing. It's about national identity and self determination.

[miga]

.

[????]

Oh Ok a bit of flaming. Reasons to cheer up if you're a labour supporter

- a Conservative Majority is actually far better for your potential for the next election than a coalition with the LDs would have been without the Liberal Democrats to tone the nasty bits down

- there's a huge rump of idealogues/near UKIPers on the right side of the Party that will cause both trouble and embarrassment to the leadership

- not many tory voters love them

- I think Boris Johnson isn't PM material...not the same gig as the Mayor at all

- you've no longer got Ed

[Blah Blah]

Yep I agree ????. Boris would be a disaster as Tory leader. Miga for next leader of the Labour party tho ;D

[miga]

.

[Blah Blah]

Yeah but can you eat a bacon sandwich right?

[Henry_17]

Blah, rah, miga,

Of course the Tories have constructed a narrative which exaggerates the extent to which the crash was Labour's fault, and exaggerates the extent to which the economy has outperformed under their governing vs. how it would have likely performed under Labour's. As politicians that is their nature.

Dont allow this frustrating fact obscure an objective analysis of whether the fiscus would have likely been in materially better shape going into the recession under the Tories, would have likely performed materially worse under a (for the first time democratically) elected Brown led administration following the recession.

IMO, most of the points you all raise are reasonable in terms of debunking the narrative, but less so in terms of assessing how much better / worse the downturn could have been.

The most common point raised is that the downturn was not caused by labour but by external factors. This is true in the sense that as I'm sure you all appreciate there are myriad causes of any downturn of varying degrees of importance. While we can clearly identify some material factors for which Labour deserve no blame such as loose US monetary policy and inadequate regulation of banks, there are also clearly identifiable factors for which they do, such as Browns overtly political decision to replace RPI with CPi as the BoE's inflation target, severing any link between UK monetary policy and housing costs and therefore admittedly somewhat less directly house prices, after which we saw a fantastic housing boom and horrible crash.

Aside from any arguments over who is to blame, there is then the criticism that Labour irresponsibly left the country exposed to the downturn by entering it in a defict position, when the growth years should have been used to "fix the roof"

The typical rebuttal to this is to point out how the Tories had pledged to match Labour's spending plans. You must at least entertain the idea that this is a red herring. Politicians say things and then do other things, especially politicians in opposition, especially politicians that have been in opposition for an extended period having unsuccessfully tried various strategies to get relected. As others have said look at what they do not what they say. The relevant history to consideration of the most recent recession of what the Tories would have done is that they oversaw two recessions in their period of governing pre Blair. The first they inherited when Thatcher came in, where they also inherited a large fiscal deficit but nonetheless oversaw a long lasting and high growth recovery following it in which employment increased significantly. The second was following their own period of governing, but unlike the one inherited from Labour they enetered this one in a position of surplus. I am not claiming it is admirable for them to have misrepresnted thier likely spending plans when in opposition, but it remains that it is just much more likely given this track record, given their oft criticised ideological leaning towards smaller government, that they would have been in a more "conservative" when a recession reared its head, as it was always going to do despite Brown claims to have eliminated the economic cycle.

Concerning which party would have had the best chance of restoring growth and stability following the downturn, I've already barked about this to miga earlier itt, but in respect of the argument that Labour's and Tories forward looking plans for spending weren't that different, this fails to recognise the more important factor of confidence. The fact is Browns's and therefore Labour's economic credibility was in tatters following proclaimations of having eliminated the business cycle, entering the downturn having missed the opportunity to put the budget in a defensive position. Perhaps it is unfair that perceptions were more harsh than reality, but it is perception not reality that sets the price of gilts, and even with the horrible cuts the economy has had to endure, it has required the sale of a tremendous amount of gilts to achieve even this unenviable position.

rah,

"Tories sold the family silver at Rock bottom prices" worse to figuratively sell the family silver than to literally have sold the family gold?

[numbers]

Jeremy Wrote:

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

> Blah Blah Wrote:

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

> -----

> > Lousia, the Scots did not shift towards the

> left

> > (and you contradict yourself in that point),

> they

> > shifted to the right in support of a

> nationalist

> > party. The SNP are nationalists first, fighting

> > for independence.

>

> I don't think that's right. Nationalism is not

> inherently right wing. It's about national

> identity and self determination.

In the absence of Labour and feeling there was no alternative to Tories they voted SNP and got...Tory!

The SNP have ruined the NHS in Scotland over last 7 years private companies have been given everyone's records it's been entirely devolved yet they still blame Westminster. Nicola bloody Sturgeon can afford to pay for her own prescriptions.

They masquerade as socialists and they are anything but. Blah blah is correct in that for them it's nationalism at all costs. FFA even if it makes everyone poorer. They are a ghastly rabble and I'm looking forward to the inevitable in-fighting between Nicola and Alex as she tries to play it down (for the moment) whilst this self-important, chip on his shoulder, unlikeable embarrassment to Scotland continues to push for it. Scotland and North Korea...who knew?!

On a separate note, someone I know shared a piece by Suzanne Moore on social media which I was surprised to find myself agreeing with. It was, I kid you not, about how those that inhabit the echo chambers of social media should get out from behind.. social media and into the real world!! Heheh.

Also, what Quids and Tillie said several pages ago, completely agree!

[Loz]

I read today Labour has changed their voting rules for the next leader election. Last time, they had three colleges - MPs (about 260), Labour members (250k) and unions (2 million). The MPs and members voted narrowly for David M, the unions voted strongly for Ed and got him over the line.

This time, it's one person one vote. In other words, the 2 million union votes will decide the election. Don't suck up completely to the unions and you leadership bid is effectively scuppered.

That's Labour screwed for 2020 already.

[Green Goose]

rahrahrah Wrote:

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

> The truth is that the Tories played to fears about

> immigration,

Correct, fully justified and widely held belief.

> to the perception that the financial

> crash was down to Labour overspending,

Correct, fully justified and widely held belief.

> and to some people's suspicion that their are people living

> lavish lifestyles paid for by benefits.

Correct, fully justified and widely held belief. Recent case of one benefits bludger who flew his bride and both their families out to the Caribbean for the wedding.

> This doesn't wash with those living in metropolitan

> areas, because they can see the benefits of

> immigration

What in Heaven's name are the benefits from immigration. Hearing Yoruba or Arabic spoken? Being surrounded by burqua wearers?

Rahrahrah, you revel in this multiculturalism thing and you appear out of touch with ordinary working people's views.

[Green Goose]

Credit again is due to ???? who, in his post (Today, 08:27PM) gave the most accurate, concise and insightful assessment of the situation.

Quids, are you studying politics by any chance??

Keep it coming, please.

GG

[Henry_17]

Green Goose,

What are the benefits of immigration?

economic: mobility, of labour, of capital, how does mainstream economic theory view mobility?

MORAL: there are two islands, one is called heaven and the other hell. Should people born on heaven feel morally justified in blocking arrivals of those born in hell because those arrivals dilute their stake in heaven?

[Blah Blah]

"Credit is due to rahrah who, in his posts gave the most accurate, concise and insightful assessment of the situation.

Keep it coming, please."

See we can all do that Green Goose!

[Blah Blah]

Have you had a look at how many doctors and nurses and cleaners come from oversees Green Goose? Such a stupid thing to say that immigration has no benefits. Almost as stupid as saying the same about emigration and internal migration.

I totally agree numbers that the SNP have not been perfect at Holyrood. They have no excuse now though, hence my optimism that the SNP may have peaked.

Still reading your long post Henry :)

[Loz]

Green Goose Wrote:

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

> What in Heaven's name are the benefits from immigration.

Well, for starters you get to have me in the country... :))