Tuesday 16th June 2015

[RogerOThornhill]

Here's one of the co-authors of the Orange Book. Sitting in the DfE as a non-exec director. Yes, still.

https://www.gov.uk/government/people/paul-marshall" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Left wing alternative my arse.

[SpinningHugo]

Here's one of the co-authors of the Orange Book. Sitting in the DfE as a non-exec director. Yes, still.

https://www.gov.uk/government/people/paul-marshall" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Left wing alternative my arse.

Doesn't matter whether they were. Matters whether that was how they were perceived.

There is not much leftwing about a nationalist party either in my view. The left and nationalists are enemies. The SNP are not truly the left, but they won by presenting themselves as a leftwing alternative.

That is also how the Lib Dems won 22% of the vote in 2005, and 23% in 2010, and why they only got 8% in 2015. That Labour did not benefit from the Lib Dems loss of 15% of the national vote share is appalling.

[giselle97]

This is quite wrong.

From 1997 onwards Labour was flanked to the left by the third party, the Lib Dems. Steadily they ate into this vote, especially after the Iraq war. (In 20005 I voted Lib Dem because of the war, the one time I have not voted Labour).

In 2015 the major left wing alternative to Labour collapsed in England (not in Scotland with the SNP of course, but Scotland is only 8% of the UK). This should have accrued to the benefit of the Labour party (and indeed for many years was assumed by most of us would do).

That that did not happen was down to the leadership of Labour.

I have at length on here set out what I thought was wrong with Labour's policy proposals in 2015, and so won't do so again.

Wait.

The LibDems were a left wing alternative?

I know the Orange Book seems to have passed some by but not you surely? How do you think they slipped into Coalition in 2010 so easily - by being left wing?

I'm ashamed to say I knew zilch about the LibDems until 2010 when (1) Clegg (and Cameron) barged in to the Joanna Lumley's Gurkha issue - and me, coincidentally, and when (2) the Coalition formed, as I regarded myself as having been made a dis-enfranchised voter by that formation, not having voted for a Coalition. I bought several books which taught me about the Orange Bookers and I've been disgusted by them ever since. I joined the Labour Party because of that and because Ed Miliband won the vote for Leader and I liked him. To call the LibDems and their corruptors, the Orange Bookers, left wing is delusional IMO.

[SpinningHugo]

And I also don't agree that it is great that someone like Corbyn is there to represent people of his views

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ultra loyalty from Corbyn there.

It is depressing that the Bennites are back.

[giselle97]

And I also don't agree that it is great that someone like Corbyn is there to represent people of his views

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ultra loyalty from Corbyn there.

It is depressing that the Bennites are back.

Can I ask you a serious question, with no insult intended?

Do you, deep down, think that you can persuade people to become right wingers like you?

[gilsey]

And I also don't agree that it is great that someone like Corbyn is there to represent people of his views

There's a surprise.

[giselle97]

And I also don't agree that it is great that someone like Corbyn is there to represent people of his views

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ultra loyalty from Corbyn there.

It is depressing that the Bennites are back.

I'm sorry but that really is just bloody trolling now, isn't it SH?

[AnatolyKasparov]

It was a pretty disgraceful comment from JC, for which he has quite rightly been strongly criticised.

It is highly likely that he will do less well than he might have done otherwise in this leadership election because of it.

That is how it should be.

(still, his behaviour during *this* contest has been pretty much flawless - the same can't be said of some of Kendall's deeply sectarian and intolerant backers, including a few MPs)

[tinybgoat]

And I also don't agree that it is great that someone like Corbyn is there to represent people of his views

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ultra loyalty from Corbyn there.

It is depressing that the Bennites are back.

Ironic, surely having Corbyn in the debates is
useful, in the same way as having your views on ftn?

[SpinningHugo]

And I also don't agree that it is great that someone like Corbyn is there to represent people of his views

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ultra loyalty from Corbyn there.

It is depressing that the Bennites are back.

Can I ask you a serious question, with no insult intended?

Do you, deep down, think that you can persuade people to become right wingers like you?

No (ignoring whether I am rightwing).

But what I hope is that events like the election result will cause people to adjust their views on how Labour can win.

I have. I was optimistic that Miliband would be PM. I thought the fundamentals were so strongly in Labour's favour that even under what I considered to be weak leadership with poor policy proposals we would win. (And if you go back you'll see that on here before the election I said we'll win, Miliband is useless, and the manifesto contained lots of stuff I thought poor. I have been saying much the same on the Graun for five years).

But, I see now I was wrong. Labour's problems were and are far larger than I thought. That means the imperative for change becomes even stronger.

I don't expect anybody here to suddenly think "Gosh Hugo you are right". That is not how political arguments on messageboards work. I would hope that one or two may hesitate for a moment before ticking the box next to Burnham however.

If we end up with Burnham as leader and Watson as deputy (as looks currently likely) I think we'll be in opposition until at least 2025. That is a long time. Sorry if I am a bit upset about that.

I might be wrong again of course, but my errors so far have not been ones of being overly pessimistic.

[RogerOThornhill]

I have. I was optimistic that Miliband would be PM. I thought the fundamentals were so strongly in Labour's favour that even under what I considered to be weak leadership with poor policy proposals we would win. (And if you go back you'll see that on here before the election I said we'll win, Miliband is useless, and the manifesto contained lots of stuff I thought poor. I have been saying much the same on the Graun for five years).

But, I see now I was wrong. Labour's problems were and are far larger than I thought. That means the imperative for change becomes even stronger.

Halfway through the election it was Cameron that didn't look like he could be bothered and thought he'd lost it. Miliband was looking far more likely to be PM as you said.

What changed was that both the SNP and the Tories found it convenient for both of them to attack Labour and tell everyone that Labour would be in the SNP's pocket.

The fact that it wasn't in any way true is immaterial - the SNP are quite satisfied with the way it turned out. They can attack Cameron and blame everyone that happens with Scottish finances on them and know that the likelihood of them getting another referendum vote is far more than if Labour had won.

If Labour ran a minority government with SNP support, it would need a UK government agreement to get another Scots vote - that was never going to happen as the Tories would vote with Labour to block it.

[giselle97]

Thank you for the answer. I don't think Burnham will make it to 2020 (almost fingers crossed as it would hopefully be for a good reason, e.g. someone more suited appears) and the less I say about Tom Watson, the better.

So, hypothetically then, SH, who is your "Dream Team" for 2020 or 2025?

[SpinningHugo]

I have. I was optimistic that Miliband would be PM. I thought the fundamentals were so strongly in Labour's favour that even under what I considered to be weak leadership with poor policy proposals we would win. (And if you go back you'll see that on here before the election I said we'll win, Miliband is useless, and the manifesto contained lots of stuff I thought poor. I have been saying much the same on the Graun for five years).

But, I see now I was wrong. Labour's problems were and are far larger than I thought. That means the imperative for change becomes even stronger.

Halfway through the election it was Cameron that didn't look like he could be bothered and thought he'd lost it. Miliband was looking far more likely to be PM as you said.

What changed was that both the SNP and the Tories found it convenient for both of them to attack Labour and tell everyone that Labour would be in the SNP's pocket.

The fact that it wasn't in any way true is immaterial - the SNP are quite satisfied with the way it turned out. They can attack Cameron and blame everyone that happens with Scottish finances on them and know that the likelihood of them getting another referendum vote is far more than if Labour had won.

If Labour ran a minority government with SNP support, it would need a UK government agreement to get another Scots vote - that was never going to happen as the Tories would vote with Labour to block it.

All true, but so what?

There is no plan to win back Scotland. Labour is stuffed in Scotland. We cannot out Scottish the SNP, and so that is that. we wait until they screw up in Holyrood, but even then the days of Labour winning 50+ Scottish seats are gone for a generation. Even if we had won every seat in Scotland, the Tories would still have had a majority of 14.

That means, looking forward, we try to work out how to win in Nuneaton. Scotland is not a big slice of the country anyway. that means working out how to close the 6.5% gap between us and the Tories. With no further Lib Dem collapse to help out, that means working out how to appeal to a slice of voters who voted Tory.

Fingers crossed the Ukip bubble will start to deflate now, but that helps the Tories as much as it helps us.

I know it is maddening, but one of the lessons of the 80s, 90s and 00s was that you can't move the country left from opposition. You can only do it from government. 2015 was yet another proof of that.

[SpinningHugo]

Thank you for the answer. I don't think Burnham will make it to 2020 (almost fingers crossed as it would hopefully be for a good reason, e.g. someone more suited appears) and the less I say about Tom Watson, the better.

So, hypothetically then, SH, who is your "Dream Team" for 2020 or 2025?

Kendall and Creasy.

We are about to find out whether the latter even gets on the ballot. 28 at time of writing, needs 35.

[giselle97]

If you want Kendal to lead the Labour Party then you don't want the Labour Party to win another election.

[gilsey]

I said we'll win, Miliband is useless, and the manifesto contained lots of stuff I thought poor. I have been saying much the same on the Graun for five years).

But, I see now I was wrong. Labour's problems were and are far larger than I thought.

IMO Labour's problems were and are different from what you thought.
Neither Miliband nor the manifesto was the problem, not even the combination of those.

[giselle97]

I see that MedConfidential has been busy with FoI requests!

https://twitter.com/medConfidential

Exmples:

Care.data topical
http://www.blackburnwithdarwenccg.nhs.u ... ta-update/
Evaluation plan for the care.data ‘pathfinder’
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ ... e_caredata

https://medconfidential.org/2015/medcon ... haos-data/

[SpinningHugo]

I said we'll win, Miliband is useless, and the manifesto contained lots of stuff I thought poor. I have been saying much the same on the Graun for five years).

But, I see now I was wrong. Labour's problems were and are far larger than I thought.

IMO Labour's problems were and are different from what you thought.
Neither Miliband nor the manifesto was the problem, not even the combination of those.

Well that is a new and interesting line of thought.

If you don't think we could have done any better with a different leader or different policies, how could we have done better?

In, you know, the actual world we find ourselves in (eg we cannot wish away a hostile press, or Sottish nationalism).

[gilsey]

That means, looking forward, we try to work out how to win in Nuneaton. Scotland is not a big slice of the country anyway. that means working out how to close the 6.5% gap between us and the Tories. With no further Lib Dem collapse to help out, that means working out how to appeal to a slice of voters who voted Tory.

Fingers crossed the Ukip bubble will start to deflate now, but that helps the Tories as much as it helps us.

I know it is maddening, but one of the lessons of the 80s, 90s and 00s was that you can't move the country left from opposition. You can only do it from government. 2015 was yet another proof of that.

Labour has to wait for the tories to lose Nuneaton, that's what history tells us.

[AnatolyKasparov]

Creasy has at least 28 nominations as we speak and she is the highest placed of the 4 still below the threshold. If she doesn't make it now I shall be a bit surprised - and rather more cross

(a DL contest between just Flint and Watson is truly not my idea of fun - I would be torn between spoiling my ballot and going reluctantly for Caroline because at least she isn't a totally uncontrollable loose cannon who has erased a past of hackery, serial disloyalty and occasional thuggery through one [admittedly impressive] Abe Ribicoff moment)

[citizenJA]

Great conversation going on, everyone, interesting posts.

[gilsey]

I said we'll win, Miliband is useless, and the manifesto contained lots of stuff I thought poor. I have been saying much the same on the Graun for five years).

But, I see now I was wrong. Labour's problems were and are far larger than I thought.

IMO Labour's problems were and are different from what you thought.
Neither Miliband nor the manifesto was the problem, not even the combination of those.

Well that is a new and interesting line of thought.

If you don't think we could have done any better with a different leader or different policies, how could we have done better?

In, you know, the actual world we find ourselves in (eg we cannot wish away a hostile press, or Sottish nationalism).

It's neither new nor particularly interesting, it's the economy.
Labour (1) failed to rebut the tory diagnosis of the causes of the recession and (2) signally failed to make any headway against the tories much-vaunted 'economic competence'. Even though they have been spectacularly incompetent.
And to accept the obvious point, that makes Labour incompetent too, to have failed in opposition.

[SpinningHugo]

That means, looking forward, we try to work out how to win in Nuneaton. Scotland is not a big slice of the country anyway. that means working out how to close the 6.5% gap between us and the Tories. With no further Lib Dem collapse to help out, that means working out how to appeal to a slice of voters who voted Tory.

Fingers crossed the Ukip bubble will start to deflate now, but that helps the Tories as much as it helps us.

I know it is maddening, but one of the lessons of the 80s, 90s and 00s was that you can't move the country left from opposition. You can only do it from government. 2015 was yet another proof of that.

Labour has to wait for the tories to lose Nuneaton, that's what history tells us.

If we do that, we consign ourselves to permanent opposition (or indeed oblivion).

That doesn't seem like a sensible suggestion to me.

[giselle97]

Creasy has at least 28 nominations as we speak and she is the highest placed of the 4 still below the threshold. If she doesn't make it now I shall be a bit surprised - and rather more cross

(a DL contest between just Flint and Watson is truly not my idea of fun - I would be torn between spoiling my ballot and going reluctantly for Caroline because at least she isn't a totally uncontrollable loose cannon who has erased a past of hackery, serial disloyalty and occasional thuggery through one [admittedly impressive] Abe Ribicoff moment)

Now this is why you can debate intelligently and logically Anatoly whilst I just spit feathers, get more and more frustrated and angry and finally stamp my feet - whilst at the same time invariably making a fool of myself and losing the points!

[SpinningHugo]

IMO Labour's problems were and are different from what you thought.
Neither Miliband nor the manifesto was the problem, not even the combination of those.

Well that is a new and interesting line of thought.

If you don't think we could have done any better with a different leader or different policies, how could we have done better?

In, you know, the actual world we find ourselves in (eg we cannot wish away a hostile press, or Sottish nationalism).

It's neither new nor particularly interesting, it's the economy.
Labour (1) failed to rebut the tory diagnosis of the causes of the recession and (2) signally failed to make any headway against the tories much-vaunted 'economic competence'. Even though they have been spectacularly incompetent.
And to accept the obvious point, that makes Labour incompetent too, to have failed in opposition.

And you don't think that was in any way the responsibility of the leader to do?

Have a look at the speech his brother would have given, and the role Darling would have taken

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... -never-was" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

it was always significant that Darling, a truly superb Chancellor, refused to work under Ed (and only cast one vote in the 2010 leadership election - for David with no alternatives).

The reason your two problems were not addressed was because of (i) the leadership of Ed Miliband and (ii) the policy mix which whilst including individually popular policies gave the wrong impression overall.

I hate this fatalism: that we can do no better and just have to wait until the Tories screw up to allow us back in.

That is just to abandon people to the Tories.

[giselle97]

David Miliband.

[RogerOThornhill]

re the economic argument. Two points.

1. Between 2010 and 2015 the Tories could always use the excuse for everything that they were still "clearing up Labour's mess" - that simply won't work now. In fact you can see that they're laying the blame for what didn't get done on the LibDems - they've become the people to blame.*

2. That note. As much as we found it infuriating, and as much as we'd like to have taken it out of Cameron's hands and simply torn it up; it worked to bring it out. Didn't do much for David Laws though did it?

You can get away with pointing the finger at other people on the economy once but you can't do it twice. Voters simply won't believe you.


* I noticed the execrable Matt Hancock blaming the LibDems for them not having sorted out fair funding for schools the other day. They consulted on it in 2011 and 2012! And then pushed it into the long grass...from whence they're not having to retrieve it.

[giselle97]

Idi Amin widow's life of tumult ends quietly in north London
Sarah Kyolaba, Ugandan dictator’s fifth and ‘favourite’ wife, was latterly proprietor of a modest hair salon in Tottenham

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015 ... ath-london

[Willow904]

I said we'll win, Miliband is useless, and the manifesto contained lots of stuff I thought poor. I have been saying much the same on the Graun for five years).

But, I see now I was wrong. Labour's problems were and are far larger than I thought.

IMO Labour's problems were and are different from what you thought.
Neither Miliband nor the manifesto was the problem, not even the combination of those.

Well that is a new and interesting line of thought.

If you don't think we could have done any better with a different leader or different policies, how could we have done better?

In, you know, the actual world we find ourselves in (eg we cannot wish away a hostile press, or Sottish nationalism).

The only way Labour could have done better would have been by being an untried fresh alternative, unbesmirched by government. By being able to be overly ambitious in their manifesto priorities safe in the knowledge that no one had yet seen how they would really behave in government. Every voter thought they knew how Labour would behave in government and how they thought they would behave would be exactly like the latter Blair/Brown years. New Labour has been rejected just as much as Milibandism (possibly more so on account that Milibandism never really got across to many voters).

You will no doubt disagree with this assessment but the evidence is there in the 4m voters Blair lost over his premiership and what is more, what happened in 2015 is no more than what most people thought in 2010 - that it would take a decade for Labour to shrug off the ghost of New Labour. If you look at the parties that gained votes - SNP, Ukip, Greens - all basically untried - and Cameron's Tories - never tested in government as a majority - and then look at the parties that lost - Labour and the Libdems, once the untried hopefuls, now tarnished and compromised by government, you will see a pattern. Voters are looking for easy answers, some kind of shangri-la.

Will they become as disillusioned by the new boys as they did with the old? Who knows, but what I do know is that the austerity economics being peddled by Osborne is coming to the end of the road. If Labour are aping Tory economic policy when the next crash hits, how will they be able to offer the alternative that voters will be craving when the (Greek default/Deutsche Bank collapse) shit hits the fan? Corbyn may not be the leader to take Labour to election victory but he is dead right about one thing - it wasn't Labour's social policy that was wrong, it was their 'sounds just like the Tories' economic policy that was the problem for swathes of voters unable to process the small print.

Personally, I don't think the actual leader matters as much as the team and I'm liking how that team is shaping up post-Blair/Brown. From your comments about the 2015 intake, I'm guessing you don't. New faces like Dan Jarvis and Keir Starmer are adding a depth that has been missing for a while. Some people really rate Stella Creasy. These new bods are going to change Labour, it's inevitable and I look forward to see what kind of party takes shape. If it's a good party, it will win power. If it's a party that tries to win power, I rather suspect it won't. You can't recreate Blair for the simple reason that Blair wasn't a 'creation' - he was just himself.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Lots of the Blair support was a one-off. Major (even with Peter Lilley in the DSS) didn't go for out of work benefits all that much. He went much more for the middle class with taxes which pissed them off. There's no way an Osborne is going to make that mistake. He stumbled upon popular middle class tax cuts- the Lib Dem policy of raising the threshold- and takes credit for it. He cut petrol tax- Major created the duty accelerator.

Major had a very grim view of public sector investment. Osborne knows that he can lose votes if train stations fall to bits like they did in the 90s. He'll keep as much of that going as possible. Always money spent on poor people (eg education) that he can cut instead.

And of course, Osborne doesn't care about fiscal rectitude like Major did. He knows he can fire back "you'd spend and tax even more".

[Tubby Isaacs]

There is no plan to win back Scotland. Labour is stuffed in Scotland. We cannot out Scottish the SNP, and so that is that. we wait until they screw up in Holyrood, but even then the days of Labour winning 50+ Scottish seats are gone for a generation. Even if we had won every seat in Scotland, the Tories would still have had a majority of 14.

No they wouldn't. Because the "Sturgeon bossing weaky Ed" was very important.

But agree, the SNP are established for the foreseeable future. Best thing electorally for Labour is that Scotland clears off.

[SpinningHugo]

t the evidence is there in the 4m voters Blair lost over his premiership.

I think this is one of the laziest ideas of the left. What matters is percentage of votes cast and winning. Blair still won in 2005, even after the Iraq War (and without my vote). If you want to win more than once you'll need to win big as you'll almost always lose votes at the next election (Cameron has just defied that rule - but he was lucky in his opposition)

Also, why do you and others keep going on about Blair? I haven't mentioned him (and I am the Blairite). Nobody is suggesting we just try exactly what worked in 1997.

(Although, if you look at the 1997 pledge card and the 2015 version you'll see the former contains specific meaningful policies, the latter platitudinous nonsense that was carved into a great slab of granite. Poor leadership.)

[Tubby Isaacs]

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/ ... 1434443723" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As well as helping wealthy entrepreneurs, the Scottish Government indicated it would seek to cut National Insurance contributions for all companies

This were the lot who were going to hold Ed Miliband to proper leftwing principles?

[TechnicalEphemera]

I have. I was optimistic that Miliband would be PM. I thought the fundamentals were so strongly in Labour's favour that even under what I considered to be weak leadership with poor policy proposals we would win. (And if you go back you'll see that on here before the election I said we'll win, Miliband is useless, and the manifesto contained lots of stuff I thought poor. I have been saying much the same on the Graun for five years).

But, I see now I was wrong. Labour's problems were and are far larger than I thought. That means the imperative for change becomes even stronger.

Halfway through the election it was Cameron that didn't look like he could be bothered and thought he'd lost it. Miliband was looking far more likely to be PM as you said.

What changed was that both the SNP and the Tories found it convenient for both of them to attack Labour and tell everyone that Labour would be in the SNP's pocket.

The fact that it wasn't in any way true is immaterial - the SNP are quite satisfied with the way it turned out. They can attack Cameron and blame everyone that happens with Scottish finances on them and know that the likelihood of them getting another referendum vote is far more than if Labour had won.

If Labour ran a minority government with SNP support, it would need a UK government agreement to get another Scots vote - that was never going to happen as the Tories would vote with Labour to block it.

All true, but so what?

There is no plan to win back Scotland. Labour is stuffed in Scotland. We cannot out Scottish the SNP, and so that is that. we wait until they screw up in Holyrood, but even then the days of Labour winning 50+ Scottish seats are gone for a generation. Even if we had won every seat in Scotland, the Tories would still have had a majority of 14.

That means, looking forward, we try to work out how to win in Nuneaton. Scotland is not a big slice of the country anyway. that means working out how to close the 6.5% gap between us and the Tories. With no further Lib Dem collapse to help out, that means working out how to appeal to a slice of voters who voted Tory.

Fingers crossed the Ukip bubble will start to deflate now, but that helps the Tories as much as it helps us.

I know it is maddening, but one of the lessons of the 80s, 90s and 00s was that you can't move the country left from opposition. You can only do it from government. 2015 was yet another proof of that.

I do not agree that 2015 shows you can't move the country left from opposition. Cameron was kept in power by one age demographic, and they are getting older, their replacements are getting poorer.

The policy fundamentals were correct, the issue was and will remain the SNP. People wanted stable government, they did not want the SNP dictating rUK policy.

Which means Labour under Burnham could win, only if it can find a way to lance the SNP boil. This is very tricky as it relies on an SNP screw up North or South of the border. The fox hunting vote might help here and FFA with immediate effect would be awesome (it won't happen).

Labour will however have to tack right on benefits and immigration. In doing the former it must not lose sight of fairness and protecting the vulnerable.

Kendall would be a total disaster, if Labours left wing hadn't voted Lib Dem in 2010 Labour would have won. The fate of the Lib Dems tells us what happens to slightly nicer Tory Parties. Corbyn would be a catastrophe, Christ knows what his MP backers are thinking.

As for Tom Watson, please God no.

[thatchersorphan]

Shock European court decision: Websites are liable for users’ comments http://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/20 ... -comments/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

@rebecca Re Please someone explain to me how and why the Tories constantly get away with this denial and deceit ... seem to never be held to account ... whilst accusing other parties of being irresponsible ... and people vote for them nevertheless? I am at a loss ... they have proven to be the most evasive and dishonest politicians - reneging on so many things - yet people don't point to them as the dodgy ones. They actually claim the mantle of 'stability' and 'security' - and people buy that?

Sadly they do... my local tory voter insists that 'most people are better off' - despite growing homelessness up here in Manchester, and tells me also people don't care about the world they leave to their descendants - as long as they themselves are alright. The selfish 'society' writ large.
Plus many are too busy hating benefit claimants to look at something 'harder' like politics, because over the years the idea that politics doesn't really affect them seems to have spread throughout the population. History is 'boring' including the struggles of the unions, the diggers, the suffragettes and so on - Its so much easier to just watch Eastenders and Big Brother on tv.

[SpinningHugo]

Cameron was kept in power by one age demographic, and they are getting older, their replacements are getting poorer.

So, we just wait until all the old people are dead, and then we win?

The one demographic getting larger is the one the Tories do best in. That is very bad news.

The denials on here that there was anything wrong with the leadership or the policies had their place before May 7th. Not now.

[TechnicalEphemera]

Well that is a new and interesting line of thought.

If you don't think we could have done any better with a different leader or different policies, how could we have done better?

In, you know, the actual world we find ourselves in (eg we cannot wish away a hostile press, or Sottish nationalism).

It's neither new nor particularly interesting, it's the economy.
Labour (1) failed to rebut the tory diagnosis of the causes of the recession and (2) signally failed to make any headway against the tories much-vaunted 'economic competence'. Even though they have been spectacularly incompetent.
And to accept the obvious point, that makes Labour incompetent too, to have failed in opposition.

And you don't think that was in any way the responsibility of the leader to do?

Have a look at the speech his brother would have given, and the role Darling would have taken

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... -never-was" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

it was always significant that Darling, a truly superb Chancellor, refused to work under Ed (and only cast one vote in the 2010 leadership election - for David with no alternatives).

The reason your two problems were not addressed was because of (i) the leadership of Ed Miliband and (ii) the policy mix which whilst including individually popular policies gave the wrong impression overall.

I hate this fatalism: that we can do no better and just have to wait until the Tories screw up to allow us back in.

That is just to abandon people to the Tories.

Darling is a complete twat.

He had cleared off long before the election, to write a fucking book.

His departure allowed the Tory party to push the lies on the financial crash. His refusal to serve subsequently is also a disgrace, Mandleson agreed to come back to help his mortal enemy Brown.

However after Sturgeon the biggest architect of the defeat was Liam Bryne. Last time I looked he was a Blairite.

[SpinningHugo]

Darling is a complete twat.

I do not agree. He was by some margin the best Chancellor since Healey. He made the call that Ed would lose and he was better off spending his time trying to defend the Union. He was right. He would have served under his brother, but that is that.

However after Sturgeon the biggest architect of the defeat was Liam Bryne. Last time I looked he was a Blairite.

You think most voters have a clue who Liam Byrne is?

[TechnicalEphemera]

Cameron was kept in power by one age demographic, and they are getting older, their replacements are getting poorer.

So, we just wait until all the old people are dead, and then we win?

The one demographic getting larger is the one the Tories do best in. That is very bad news.

The denials on here that there was anything wrong with the leadership or the policies had their place before May 7th. Not now.

No, the demographic is increasing but.

1. Old rich pensioners will die off.
2. The replacements will increasingly be getting poorer. The decrease in property ownership, the end of proper pension schemes, the squeeze in wages all count against them.

I believe I have pointed to two areas where Labour got it wrong in 2015. I do not believe pandering to big business (who will always support the Tories) is one of them.

Yes big business went Labour in 97 but only because they were terrified of being on the losing side. Unless Labour goes pro Non Doms, pro zero tax, pro tax loopholes, they will always have a better Tory option to vote for.

You can't win UKIP voters and grovel to big business.

[TechnicalEphemera]

Darling is a complete twat.

I do not agree. He was by some margin the best Chancellor since Healey. He made the call that Ed would lose and he was better off spending his time trying to defend the Union. He was right. He would have served under his brother, but that is that.

However after Sturgeon the biggest architect of the defeat was Liam Bryne. Last time I looked he was a Blairite.

You think most voters have a clue who Liam Byrne is?

I think every voter saw Cameron brandishing his note at every single media event. It was lethal.

[SpinningHugo]

1. Old rich pensioners will die off.

No. The demographics of this (and the age distribution of wealth) indicates exactly the opposite.

[Willow904]

t the evidence is there in the 4m voters Blair lost over his premiership.

I think this is one of the laziest ideas of the left. What matters is percentage of votes cast and winning. Blair still won in 2005, even after the Iraq War (and without my vote). If you want to win more than once you'll need to win big as you'll almost always lose votes at the next election (Cameron has just defied that rule - but he was lucky in his opposition)

Also, why do you and others keep going on about Blair? I haven't mentioned him (and I am the Blairite). Nobody is suggesting we just try exactly what worked in 1997.

(Although, if you look at the 1997 pledge card and the 2015 version you'll see the former contains specific meaningful policies, the latter platitudinous nonsense that was carved into a great slab of granite. Poor leadership.)

So what is your fave Kendall suggesting then? And can she actually learn to do a tv interview? You have a lot of negatives to say about the candidates you don't like but very little of real substance about what is so special about Kendall. Every time she opens her mouth she's in danger of losing most of the voters who just voted for Ed. I almost suspect she's just a stalking horse to play the candidate on the right, so Cooper can come through the middle.

By the way the Coalition didn't defy the rule - the government parties lost votes like normal. It just fell out that the Libdems lost votes in many places where the Tories were second and Labour nowhere. The tiny amount of extra votes the Tories picked up may well have come from Tory voters who tactically voted Libdem against Labour last time. Not much any Labour leader could have done about that (and remember Blair had the benefit throughout of the Libdems locking the Tories out of several seats in the South and South West which Ed didn't). Multi-party politics is changing a lot of stuff. Labour might not survive it (I'm realistic about that) but I genuinely believe Tory trickle down neoliberalism is unsustainable and on the verge of collapse. Labour need to be the change party, not the Thatcherite continuity party, if they are going to win in 2020.

[SpinningHugo]

e Tory trickle down neoliberalism is unsustainable and on the verge of collapse.

great, so we win when capitalism collapses?

Must be soon now, sure.

[TechnicalEphemera]

1. Old rich pensioners will die off.

No. The demographics of this (and the age distribution of wealth) indicates exactly the opposite.

Seriously? The pensioners today are a golden generation, their replacements much less so. Retirement age is heading up, pensions are far far less generous.

[Willow904]

e Tory trickle down neoliberalism is unsustainable and on the verge of collapse.

great, so we win when capitalism collapses?

Must be soon now, sure.

No "we win" when the UK elects a government that's committed to ending the "trickle down" bollocks that takes money from the poorest to give to the richest. "We win" when we elect a government that taxes wealth, rather than work. "We win" when we elect a government that invests in council housing, energy infrastructure (rather than guaranteeing ridiculous returns to the Communist Chinese government) and education. "We win" when people realise that a government surplus means more household debt and that being tough on welfare means starving children, disabled people being kicked out of their homes and ex-soldiers sleeping on the streets.
The reason that people no longer trust Labour is because all these things continued to go wrong on their watch. As I've said before, Blair blew his opportunity to move the country to the left from power (as you like to term it), he didn't change anything. Why would Kendall be any different? If she acts like a Tory to woo Tory voters, how can I know she won't morph into a Tory in power like Blair did.
BTW capitalism and neoliberalism aren't the same thing.

Neoliberalism[1] is a term whose usage and definition have changed over time.[2]

Since the 1980s, the term has been used primarily by scholars and critics in reference to the resurgence of 19th century ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism beginning in the 1970s and 1980s, whose advocates support extensive economic liberalization policies such as privatization, fiscal austerity, deregulation, free trade, and reductions in government spending in order to enhance the role of the private sector in the economy

None of the above are inevitable in a capitalist economy, they are merely choices made by people who stand to gain by them.

[SpinningHugo]

1. Old rich pensioners will die off.

No. The demographics of this (and the age distribution of wealth) indicates exactly the opposite.

Seriously? The pensioners today are a golden generation, their replacements much less so. Retirement age is heading up, pensions are far far less generous.

Seriously I am afraid. The wealth distribution is becoming more skewed with wealth distribution favouring the over 65s ever more. They are getting richer not poorer. Part of the inequality problem.

[citizenJA]

Shock European court decision: Websites are liable for users’ comments http://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/20 ... -comments/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

@rebecca Re Please someone explain to me how and why the Tories constantly get away with this denial and deceit ... seem to never be held to account ... whilst accusing other parties of being irresponsible ... and people vote for them nevertheless? I am at a loss ... they have proven to be the most evasive and dishonest politicians - reneging on so many things - yet people don't point to them as the dodgy ones. They actually claim the mantle of 'stability' and 'security' - and people buy that?

Sadly they do... my local tory voter insists that 'most people are better off' - despite growing homelessness up here in Manchester, and tells me also people don't care about the world they leave to their descendants - as long as they themselves are alright. The selfish 'society' writ large.
Plus many are too busy hating benefit claimants to look at something 'harder' like politics, because over the years the idea that politics doesn't really affect them seems to have spread throughout the population. History is 'boring' including the struggles of the unions, the diggers, the suffragettes and so on - Its so much easier to just watch Eastenders and Big Brother on tv.

Most people, though Tory, aren't without a conscience - it doesn't mean they'll vote differently, having a conscience, they'll most likely use defence mechanisms. One defence mechanism is declining to accept unequivocal evidence Tory policies they've voted for are causing harm to people. I'm not surprised the Tory voter your know wouldn't acknowledge the homeless people on the streets of Manchester. I'm sorry for it, but not surprised.

From my heart, I wish the Tories would use their time in leadership now making life better for people & protecting the well-being of the whole country. I doubt that is going to happen. Your Tory voting local's defence mechanisms will fail when infrastructure they count on buckle. I fear that will happen in the near future. I hope it won't. But I'd be foolish not to look at history, policies & the evidence in front of me.

The UK electorate numbers about fifty million people; not all of those people are registered to vote though there's no law against them doing so at this time. The Tories received about eleven million three hundred thousand votes & Labour received about nine million three hundred thousand votes. Fewer than thirty-one million people voted in this election. Labour may not increase their vote share & the number of people who voted for UKIP alarm me.

Nonetheless, the UK has a recent history of some of the finest social security provision, health care delivery & generally speaking, stable, advanced, networks in the world. The last five years have dented some of those systems, yes. The strain Tory policies continue to place on the country & people will affect greater numbers of people now. Your Tory voting local, ain' gon' like it all go crash under they feet. People can be distracted & the choices they make after system failure can be unwise. But most people aren't psychopaths & don't like the few that are destroying their society.

Labour, be competent, diligent & do the best you can. We can't ask for more than the best. We had the best in Ed Miliband, in my opinion. I accept the tragedy of not enough people voting Labour to return them to government. Labour didn't get returned to government though I know Labour are the best. Get people registered & have them vote. Do our best. It's all we can do.

[citizenJA]

No. The demographics of this (and the age distribution of wealth) indicates exactly the opposite.

Seriously? The pensioners today are a golden generation, their replacements much less so. Retirement age is heading up, pensions are far far less generous.

Seriously I am afraid. The wealth distribution is becoming more skewed with wealth distribution favouring the over 65s ever more. They are getting richer not poorer. Part of the inequality problem.

Wealth is concentrated in fewer hands.
Fewer people hold greater amounts of wealth.
The recommended action is to recognise the untenable situation & make every effort to stabilise the social, economic & political societies everyone relies upon.

[citizenJA]

Cameron was kept in power by one age demographic, and they are getting older, their replacements are getting poorer.

So, we just wait until all the old people are dead, and then we win?

The one demographic getting larger is the one the Tories do best in. That is very bad news.

The denials on here that there was anything wrong with the leadership or the policies had their place before May 7th. Not now.

Everyone has a right to vote for the party they think will best represent them.
Sometimes, people make mistakes.
Not enough people voted for the best political party, Labour, to lead the people & country in the 2015 GE.

[thatchersorphan]

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canad ... t-election" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; Trudeau announces plan to kill first-past-the-post by the next election. (Canada - they have elections in a few months, like us they currently have pro- austerity tories)