Labour Leadership

[Otta]

Thought it might be an idea to have a dedicated thread.

So the candidates. Here's a BBC Profile of them all

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32654262

Interesting lines from another BBC Page

"Meanwhile, a review following the party's election defeat said an anti-austerity platform was "a vote loser".

The study, led by the party's former policy chief Jon Cruddas, found that "the Tories didn't win despite austerity, they won because of it".

In a poll of 3,000 people in England and Wales conducted for the party, 58% of voters agreed cutting the deficit was the "top priority", with 16% disagreeing.

But some 60% also agreed the economy unfairly favours powerful interests and 43% said they would vote for a party that would redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor."

And finally, I saw this article today

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33796193

Burnham definitely trying to put feelers out to some of the lefty Corbyn voters, without going too far that way himself.

[Blah Blah]

And we all know how accurate polls are don't we :D

I definitely think the tide is turning on corporate interests. Young people especially are very clued up on how corporations buy politicians and legislation to serve their own interests at the expense of everyone else. They also seem to have a good understanding of how those things connect in the world, to keep some nations poor and/ or corrupt.

Labours problem wasn't an anti-austerity platform. It was three years of no opposition whilst the Tories hammered home the myth that Labour destroyed the economy. So in that sense, yet more self denial from Labour.

[Loz]

Corbyn would be a disaster for the Labour party. Labour needs a strong leader that can take them back to a centre-left position. Corbyn is not that leader. The Tories need an effective opposition to keep them honest and he's not the person to do it. Cameron will eat him for breakfast.

Mind you Harman has been singularly ineffectual of late. I don't like her as a person, but I do respect her as a politician and she's been weirdly meek (and weak) in this term as stand-in leader.

Out of the rest, Burnham seems to have turned into a "what to you want me to believe today" candidate, which is disappointing as last time around he seemed to be the candidate with the most solid principles. Liz Kendall is too centre-right for Labour. Cooper is probably their best bet for an election-winner, but she's a bit tainted by the ghost of Balls.

[????]

..other than the one I did a few weeks back Otta :)

[Otta]

Soz, I thought there might have been one, but clearly couldn't be arsed looking.

Blah Blah Wrote:

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

> Labours problem wasn't an anti-austerity platform.

> It was three years of no opposition whilst the

> Tories hammered home the myth that Labour

> destroyed the economy. So in that sense, yet more

> self denial from Labour.

I pretty much agree with that, they just didn't stick up for themselves at all, and now the tories' version is basically accepted as total fact by many.

Personally I would like the party to move a bit more left of centre, but I don't think Corbyn is the man.

[Blah Blah]

I'm torn on Corbyn. I like his determination to be an opposition, and don't see that with any of the other candidates. I tend to think that win or lose, you have to have conviction as a party leader. Labour's problem is that they keep trying to second guess what the electorate want, and that of course is a shifting sand, instead of winning the debate from a strong stance of principle, and taking voters with them. This (as much as I hate the current Tory principles) I think Cameron has done far better.

[????]

Corybn is a delight compared to the other robots? passion, belief, not a sign of a spin doctor, sincere and likeable. I buy all of that but personally I think he?d be an absolute disaster for this country setting us back years, pushing far more people into poverty, increasing unemployment, destroying investment and devastating public finances. I would be voting Tory without a shadow of a doubt if he gets elected.

And, scarily, I don?t completely dismiss his chance of being PM and think he will be next Leader of the Labour Party.

I?ve long supported pragmatism over idealism. Idealism gets mankind in all sorts of sh1te

[JohnL]

Loz Wrote:

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

> Corbyn would be a disaster for the Labour party.

> Labour needs a strong leader that can take them

> back to a centre-left position. Corbyn is not

> that leader. The Tories need an effective

> opposition to keep them honest and he's not the

> person to do it. Cameron will eat him for

> breakfast.

>

> Mind you Harman has been singularly ineffectual of

> late. I don't like her as a person, but I do

> respect her as a politician and she's been weirdly

> meek (and weak) in this term as stand-in leader.

>

> Out of the rest, Burnham seems to have turned into

> a "what to you want me to believe today"

> candidate, which is disappointing as last time

> around he seemed to be the candidate with the most

> solid principles. Liz Kendall is too centre-right

> for Labour. Cooper is probably their best bet for

> an election-winner, but she's a bit tainted by the

> ghost of Balls.

Harriet started the anti Boris thing that has brought

George Osborne as favorite for the next PM.

I like Corbyn because he says what he thinks - whether

I'd vote for him as PM is entirely different :)

[ratty]

The more I think about it the more I think Corbyn.

Eat him for breakfast Loz? Cameron would not even know what to have for breakfast without being told. He is a total fucktard!

[Blah Blah]

I saw the Andrew Marr interview and have to say I like his thinking on more than a few things. He doesn't strike me as someone intent on wrecking the economy in pursuit of some mad socialist ideology. Quite the opposite in fact. He seems to understand perfectly what can be done to move towards a fairer and stronger economy long term. And I also like that he talks from a standpoint of process, rather than the wishy washy meaningless soundbites of the other candidates. He's the only one who not only talks about fairness but also on how we can move to deliver it. He's the only one who states what fairness means.

[Loz]

On the other hand, most of Corbyn's economic policy has been formulated by former accountant and now professional random number generator, Richard Murphy. Utterly clueless.

Corbyn would be the perfect MP. He works hard for his constituents and is very genuine. I just think he would be a ideological disaster as PM. I don't think that will happen, but he may just destroy the Labour Party along the way. It says a lot that he has very little support amongst MPs - to the point that he only got on the ballot paper with what was either some sort of bizarre sympathy vote or an attempt to look inclusive and chuck a real lefty in.

[Blah Blah]

But to be fair that is the view of other Labour MPs who want a return to Blairite policies. It's the party members who get to decide who becomes leader and if the party members want Corbyn, the Labour Party need to accept that. They can't just keep ignoring that a huge swathe of traditional Labour support feel increasingly disenfranchised from the economy. It DOES matter that the 90% don't earn enough to support our economy or even themselves in many cases. And as I made in my point above, more than half the population aren't invested in sustaining the economy at all.

The Labour spilt is obvious, between those who have given up on their traditional working class ground support and think they need to become more 'Tory' if they want to win an election, and those who want to get those seats back in Scotland and get back those votes lost to UKIP etc. I think the former is lazy and the latter will require real work towards a change of collective consiousness. I don't care if Corbyn loses the next General Election if the alternative is a Labour government that mirrors the the Tory party in all but name. That's what America has for a politcal system and we all know how poor that is. That is why Corbyn is winning people like me over.

[Loz]

Blah Blah Wrote:

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

> The Labour spilt is obvious, between those who have given up on their traditional working class ground support

> and think they need to become more 'Tory' if they want to win an election, and those who want to get those seats

> back in Scotland and get back those votes lost to UKIP etc. I think the former is lazy and the latter will require

> real work towards a change of collective consiousness. I don't care if Corbyn loses the next General Election

> if the alternative is a Labour government that mirrors the the Tory party in all but name.

I agree that the current Labour party are way too close to the Tories, but moving too far too fast will only scare the horses and leave Labour in opposition not just for an election, but possibly for a generation. You can effect change if and only if you are in government. It would be much better to find a solid centre-left person, but of the current leadership contenders, no one really fits the bill like Andy Burnham did last time around - before he started to move wherever the wind blows.

Three of the leadership hopefuls offer credibility. One offers something different. The problem is that Labour needs to offer something different AND something credible.

> That's what America has for a politcal system and we all know how poor that is.

Sort of. It always amuses me when people say how terribly right-wing the Tories are, but then big-up the even more right-wing Democrats. If just about any Democrat HoR or senate member moved to the UK, I know which party they would join.

But the Republicans? They are complete right-wing nutters. I look at all their hopefuls and I can barely see a sane one amongst them.

[Jah Lush]

Corbyn in UK. Bernie Saunders in the US. That's what I want.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/almost-every-major-poll-shows-bernie-sanders_b_7937906.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000063

[????]

Yeah back to the 70s.....

[Blah Blah]

Why does everyone assume a Corbyn leadership means back to the 70's? That's not the impression I get from him at all. What I do see from him are some suggestions for making the economy we have a bit fairer, and a bit more affordable for the many.

[????]

Well..

Higher tax rates

Nationalisation

Clause 4 reintroduced

It's hardly a secret, and many support these ideas, but it is a return to 70s type Labour policies

[????]

...or France today, except they've now scrapped the higher tax rate as it reduced tax take

[Blah Blah]

The only nationalisation he's mention is of things we heavily subsidise anyway, like the railways. And why should we subsidise private corporations so that they can pass on 'profits' to shareholders. We do so because we need that infrastructure and corporations know this. They are taking us for a ride. Meanwhile, Osbourne sells our profitable share in Eurostar and sells RBS back to the private market at a ?13bn loss. I can list other examples.

On taxations he has said he would restore the 50p rate. He's said nothing about ordinary income tax. He has said plenty though about closing tax havens and tax avoidance schemes. Again, can't see anything wrong with that. The 70's had a general rate of around 33p per pound and a higher rate of 70%. It's ridiculous to claim the sheer mention of a tax increase to the general policies of the 70s.

[ratty]

My heart says Corbyn. However I think he would make a better opposition leader than he would country leader. Were he to become PM then I think the establishment would see to it that he would be quickly and efficiently taken down in "A Very British Coup".

I think I am going to simply give up politics and just cross my fingers that the government doesn't kill too many poor people.

[Blah Blah]

I agree with all that and suspect there will be an internal establishment coup before we get anywhere near the next election. That's what I find despicable about the Labour party at the moment. The infighting in some desperate grapple for power. How do they think that looks to us? It's as though they've been thrown into blind panic by the election results, when in reality they should be focussing on making that slim majority as difficult for the Tories as possible. Cameron is facing many battles ahead, over Europe etc. That's also not to forget that the Tories will be facing their own leadership contest if Cameron holds to his promise to not run for s third term.

[Jah Lush]

Blah Blah wrote -

"That's also not to forget that the Tories will be facing their own leadership contest if Cameron holds to his promise to not run for a third term."

Promises promises. Election promises. Probably another one of his lies.

[Blah Blah]

Yeah I'm inclined to think the same. He may live to regret having made that declaration.

[sjsl]

Ratty says ?

"My heart says Corbyn"...

so does mine, and maybe it's time to follow hearts ? if following heads involves any of the other candidates who I honestly think are no more likely to win the next election, they are either too tainted or too mealy-mouthed.

The Labour party hasn't represented me for years, despite my desire to be a Labour voter, so I'm going to give the man a chance, at the very least he'll stir things up ? and he has the support of all the young voters I've spoken to (I'm well over the hill).

[JohnL]

Blah Blah Wrote:

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

> Yeah I'm inclined to think the same. He may live

> to regret having made that declaration.

He has to go at the end of the parliament - he's not going to do a Blatter.

Wonder how Osborn would behave if he had all the power :)