Tuesday 21st July 2015

Post by **refitman** » Tue 21 Jul, 2015 7:11 am

Morning all.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Tue 21 Jul, 2015 7:43 am

In the light of the question of whether CLP nominations are any guide

http://www.ncpolitics.uk/2015/07/corbyn ... gest.html/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The entire Welfare Bill fiasco could not have been better for Corbyn. Well done Osborne and Harman. Burnham has made himself look a weak fool with his starting gun rubbish.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Tue 21 Jul, 2015 7:59 am

Morning.

Funding reforms mean 'substantially higher debt for poorest students'
Institute for Fiscal Studies says chancellor’s changes to maintenance grants will ‘increase cost of higher education’
http://www.theguardian.com/education/20 ... t-students" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

... But the latest accusation from the IFS, that there will be little gain for the exchequer despite a severe hike in costs for students, will sting the Treasury.

Under the government’s plans, the poorest 40% of students will now graduate with debts of up to £53,000 from a three-year course, rather than a maximum of £40,500, after a £3,500 grant is converted into a loan and a £550 top-up is added.

The IFS said the system would need almost as much government money as forecast before the budget after its own study showed around three-quarters of the new loans would need to be written off.

It said: “The amount of money lent to students will rise by about £2.3bn for each intake, but only around a quarter of these additional loans will be repaid.

“The effect of such a high rate of non-repayment will be to reduce government borrowing by just £270m – a 3% decline in the government’s estimated contribution to higher education.”...

They must have known this before drafting this policy. The student loans system was already being called out as a bad financial policy as so many students were never going to repay their loan.

mikems · Post by **mikems** » Tue 21 Jul, 2015 8:03 am

Burnham, Harman and Cooper, all being politically 'clever' and 'realistic' and being wrong-footed by an idiot like Osborne. A sign, perhaps, that their way of going about politics doesn't work, not for themselves, the Parliamentary Labour Party, nor the millions of victims.

Corbyn, sticking to his principles, wins. And doesn't let down the millions of victims.

Swarthlander · Post by **Swarthlander** » Tue 21 Jul, 2015 8:14 am

Well, I'm dumbstruck.

Today I stand totally disgusted with the Labour Party (apart from the 48).
How on earth can you not oppose child poverty or poverty of any kind.
My Party membership is not worth the plastic it's printed on.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Tue 21 Jul, 2015 8:20 am

Good lord ... Radio 4 presenter putting a sensible alternative about educating people about the true picture re social security payments rather than the myths to David Blunkett who has been arguing a very weird line re not positioning Labour as a party of opposition to the Tories.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Tue 21 Jul, 2015 8:28 am

mikems wrote:Burnham, Harman and Cooper, all being politically 'clever' and 'realistic' and being wrong-footed by an idiot like Osborne. A sign, perhaps, that their way of going about politics doesn't work, not for themselves, the Parliamentary Labour Party, nor the millions of victims.

Corbyn, sticking to his principles, wins. And doesn't let down the millions of victims.

I think you are very right re not joining in with the clever games. I'm fed up with hearing politicians go on about letting the Tories define us as .... stop caring so much about what the Tories spin and care more about what actually matters to the Labour party and the people you are representing. There is so much dithering and pish because they seem to be looking to what the Tories think and are saying all the time ... start defining yourselves rather than letting others do it for you.

TechnicalEphemera · Post by **TechnicalEphemera** » Tue 21 Jul, 2015 8:31 am

SpinningHugo wrote:In the light of the question of whether CLP nominations are any guide

http://www.ncpolitics.uk/2015/07/corbyn ... gest.html/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The entire Welfare Bill fiasco could not have been better for Corbyn. Well done Osborne and Harman. Burnham has made himself look a weak fool with his starting gun rubbish.

Golden opportunity for Kendall to prove she isn't a Tory by opposing it. Didn't take it though and was the only candidate to endorse Harman's position.

The best case study I have found for why the sort of politics espoused by the Blairites would destroy the Labour Party. They even made Tim Farron look good.

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Tue 21 Jul, 2015 8:34 am

Sorry I don't remember who provided the link but I've just started to look at the government's Benefit Cap Briefing Paper. Yesterday IDS was challenged in the House to explain the reduction the benefit cap from £26000 to £20000 or £23000 if calculated on median earnings and could he explain the drop in median earnings during the intervening period. His reply was that the previous cap was based on gross pay and the new on nett after tax and NI. Liar! Liar! Liar!

From the briefing paper:

The 2010 Spending Review announced that from 2013 household welfare payments will be capped on the basis of median earnings after tax and national insurance contributions for working households

Maybe not the most important matter, nevertheless MPs and ministers must be reprimanded for misleading the House. It used to be a resigning matter for ministers in the past.

Edit: the paper: http://researchbriefings.files.parliame ... N06294.pdf

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Tue 21 Jul, 2015 9:05 am

SpinningHugo wrote:In the light of the question of whether CLP nominations are any guide

http://www.ncpolitics.uk/2015/07/corbyn ... gest.html/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The entire Welfare Bill fiasco could not have been better for Corbyn. Well done Osborne and Harman. Burnham has made himself look a weak fool with his starting gun rubbish.

I'm not entirely sure, SH, although Osborne's trap has seemingly had the desired effect judging by what I've seen as comment from Labour supporters. Personally I feel Burnham and others should have opposed and not abstained as I used to urge LibDems in government, but then they (Labour) are not and the figures don't stack up. Harman was the main one at fault. Who knows full opposition may have just swung things given the small majority.

I am angry though, these parliamentary games are a waste of time and must cost a bloody fortune. I wish we had adults in governance.

Edit: for clarity.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Tue 21 Jul, 2015 9:11 am

utopiandreams wrote:Sorry I don't remember who provided the link but I've just started to look at the government's Benefit Cap Briefing Paper. Yesterday IDS was challenged in the House to explain the reduction the benefit cap from £26000 to £20000 or £23000 if calculated on median earnings and could he explain the drop in median earnings during the intervening period. His reply was that the previous cap was based on gross pay and the new on nett after tax and NI. Liar! Liar! Liar!

From the briefing paper:

The 2010 Spending Review announced that from 2013 household welfare payments will be capped on the basis of median earnings after tax and national insurance contributions for working households
Maybe not the most important matter, nevertheless MPs and ministers must be reprimanded for misleading the House. It used to be a resigning matter for ministers in the past.

Edit: the paper: http://researchbriefings.files.parliame ... N06294.pdf

He is indeed a liar.

Never mind - it's all going to change if the Welfare Reform and Work Bill makes it into legislation.

It has, in the Memorandum I've been going on about for days on end, a delegated power which removes the calculation of the cap based on earnings. The Secretary of State can set the cap at any level he likes and it can be different in any town if he feels that way inclined.

The only reason they have cut it by just a few thousand is because they can't get away with cutting it more under current legislation.

Hope that helps....

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Tue 21 Jul, 2015 9:35 am

@ephemerid

I share your disgust, ephe, nevertheless I hope your anger and despair doesn't gain traction. Beyond what's healthy that is, sometimes we need a distraction; joyful ones preferably.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Tue 21 Jul, 2015 9:56 am

On the Today programme David Blunkett, a Labour former work and pensions secretary, said the party was “in emotional trauma”.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blo ... itics-live" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He's entitled to his opinion and he's entitled to comment, but does he really need to use such melodramatic language? Labour people would do better to criticise the Tories. Leave others to citicise Labour - God only knows there's enough people lining up to do so.

As for Blunkett supporting the two child policy - the policy is inept, with multiple exemptions that make it a complicated joke. If Labour really want to cut benefits to large families, what's wrong with tapering off the amount for each additional child on the grounds that hand-me-downs etc make them cheaper to look after? Labour can keep voters who want to see welfare cuts onside without supporting ill- thought through Tory policies. It's perfectly possible to oppose the Tories whilst proposing the exact same sort of policies Tory supporters vote for - the SNP do it all the time. If Labour keep agreeing with the Tories people will simply assume they are right about everything and keep voting for them.
I'm now swinging back to Cooper on the grounds that Burnham made himself look a bit of a numpty. Cooper may be to the right of me but she's clever and would be much harder for Osborne to manipulate. I'm still impressed with her " get the EU to pay for immigrants".

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Tue 21 Jul, 2015 10:00 am

This is what should be referenced time after time by anyone interviewing a tory spokesperson.

http://www.frankfield.com/latest-news/p ... ?p=1021009" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Hopefully FF tones down his praise for IDS and shows a bit of bite. There's enough meat to aim for a Hodge style chairmanship of a select committee.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Tue 21 Jul, 2015 10:35 am

Willow904 wrote:
On the Today programme David Blunkett, a Labour former work and pensions secretary, said the party was “in emotional trauma”.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blo ... itics-live" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He's entitled to his opinion and he's entitled to comment, but does he really need to use such melodramatic language? Labour people would do better to criticise the Tories. Leave others to citicise Labour - God only knows there's enough people lining up to do so.
As for Blunkett supporting the two child policy - the policy is inept, with multiple exemptions that make it a complicated joke. If Labour really want to cut benefits to large families, what's wrong with tapering off the amount for each additional child on the grounds that hand-me-downs etc make them cheaper to look after? Labour can keep voters who want to see welfare cuts onside without supporting ill- thought through Tory policies. It's perfectly possible to oppose the Tories whilst proposing the exact same sort of policies Tory supporters vote for - the SNP do it all the time. If Labour keep agreeing with the Tories people will simply assume they are right about everything and keep voting for them.
I'm now swinging back to Cooper on the grounds that Burnham made himself look a bit of a numpty. Cooper may be to the right of me but she's clever and would be much harder for Osborne to manipulate. I'm still impressed with her " get the EU to pay for immigrants".

Would that be David "The Man Who Mistook Someone Else's Wife For a Legitimate Expense Claim" Blunkett? That David Blunkett? What a liability he is. He should shut up.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Tue 21 Jul, 2015 10:36 am

Good morfternoon!

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Tue 21 Jul, 2015 10:39 am

Labour rebels by leadership endorsement is at politicshome, sorry can't get the link to work.

Slightly surprised/pleased to see Sadiq Khan on the list.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Tue 21 Jul, 2015 10:40 am

I noticed that Ed Miliband wasn't listed amongst the "no" voters yesterday (Sadiq Khan was). Was he (EM) there - and how did he vote? Does anyone know, please?

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Tue 21 Jul, 2015 10:40 am

On another note, I was amused to see when typing out FF that my predictive keyboard suggests FFS

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Tue 21 Jul, 2015 10:51 am

London mayoral candidates.

minch · Post by **minch** » Tue 21 Jul, 2015 11:06 am

I presume that as only 308 Conservative MPs voted yesterday the rest were 'paired' with Labour MPs. Can those 'paired' MPs claim that they effectively voted against?

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Tue 21 Jul, 2015 11:13 am

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015 ... CMP=twt_gu" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Tories are callously redefining what it means to be sick or disabled
Frances Ryan

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Tue 21 Jul, 2015 11:13 am

gilsey wrote:Labour rebels by leadership endorsement is at politicshome, sorry can't get the link to work.

Slightly surprised/pleased to see Sadiq Khan on the list.

Whoops! Sorry - repetition (re SK). Didn't notice your post - which may have arrived whilst I was typing?

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Tue 21 Jul, 2015 11:19 am

Debbie Abrahams has been granted an Urgent Question on the deaths of Social Security Claimants at 12.30.

ephemerid · Post by **ephemerid** » Tue 21 Jul, 2015 11:24 am

utopiandreams wrote:@ephemerid

I share your disgust, ephe, nevertheless I hope your anger and despair doesn't gain traction. Beyond what's healthy that is, sometimes we need a distraction; joyful ones preferably.

How kind you are. And how right you are.

I am very fortunate to have a programme of recovery (AA) which helps me to sort myself out on a daily basis.

That's why I retired early last night; I can let the sun go down on my anger, meditate in the cool light of early morning, and be ready to do whatever has to be done today.
Anger - a just and righteous anger - is not necessarily a bad thing. Resentment and bitterness, pointless raging against the machine, are not very useful in my experience.

So just for today, I will use my just and righteous anger in as positive a way as I can muster.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Tue 21 Jul, 2015 11:30 am

I have an hour off,pedalling furiously on exercise bike,listening to the Stones and using my kindle.Who says men cannot multitesk (oops)

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Tue 21 Jul, 2015 11:36 am

SpinningHugo wrote:In the light of the question of whether CLP nominations are any guide

http://www.ncpolitics.uk/2015/07/corbyn ... gest.html/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The entire Welfare Bill fiasco could not have been better for Corbyn. Well done Osborne and Harman. Burnham has made himself look a weak fool with his starting gun rubbish.

He has said if he is elected leader, Labour will vote against the third reading.

Burnham is fundamentally a loyalist. He has been loyal to Harman just as he was loyal to Blair, Brown and Miliband.

I thought you were in favour of that sort of thing - or is that only the case with people of whom you approve?

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Tue 21 Jul, 2015 11:45 am

Willow904 wrote:... I'm still impressed with her " get the EU to pay for immigrants".

I may not be a Labour party member, Willow, but to be fair to Burnham he has said as much himself. I don't know why but I just don't take to Cooper, she just grates, possibly because she too often brings up women issues on unrelated matters. Easy for me to say though, I'm a bloke; I hope that doesn't make me chauvinist. She may well deflate Cameron and Osborne's pompous behaviour in the chamber but that's not enough reason to back her; that's their failing for lacking the expected decorum of the House and should be picked up for it.

'And on that note I can't remember his words, I should have made a note, but IDS really excelled himself yesterday. I expect he learned those words from his mirror, mirror on the wall.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Tue 21 Jul, 2015 11:54 am

AnatolyKasparov wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:In the light of the question of whether CLP nominations are any guide

http://www.ncpolitics.uk/2015/07/corbyn ... gest.html/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The entire Welfare Bill fiasco could not have been better for Corbyn. Well done Osborne and Harman. Burnham has made himself look a weak fool with his starting gun rubbish.
He has said if he is elected leader, Labour will vote against the third reading.

Burnham is fundamentally a loyalist. He has been loyal to Harman just as he was loyal to Blair, Brown and Miliband.

I thought you were in favour of that sort of thing - or is that only the case with people of whom you approve?

Loyalty?

Not at all.

I thought and think Labour is far too loyal. The party was much much too loyal to both of the last two leaders. They both should have been forced out once it became clear they would lose and there was an alternative.

It is Harman's fault that Burnham has been made to look a fool, but that is what has happened. Abstaining and then saying 'I am firing the starting gun on opposition to this" makes you look a buffoon. He should either have rebelled, or abstained and explained the parts he opposes. Abstaining and then saying you oppose just makes you look like an opportunist (which, of course, he is.)

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Tue 21 Jul, 2015 11:55 am

utopiandreams wrote:
Willow904 wrote:... I'm still impressed with her " get the EU to pay for immigrants".
I may not be a Labour party member, Willow, but to be fair to Burnham he has said as much himself. I don't know why but I just don't take to Cooper, she just grates, possibly because she too often brings up women issues on unrelated matters. Easy for me to say though, I'm a bloke; I hope that doesn't make me chauvinist. She may well deflate Cameron and Osborne's pompous behaviour in the chamber but that's not enough reason to back her; that's their failing for lacking the expected decorum of the House and should be picked up for it.

'And on that note I can't remember his words, I should have made a note, but IDS really excelled himself yesterday. I expect he learned those words from his mirror, mirror on the wall.

To be honest neither Burnham or Cooper really stand out for me, which is why I keep swinging between the two. Regardless of ideology, neither Corbyn or Kendall have the ability to command the trust of the majority of Labour MPs. I'm also convinced that experience is vital. Both Cooper and Burnham have already had a taste of what the Tories and mainstream media will throw at them. Burnham sounds convincing when addressing parliament, less so through the prism of the press. Cooper has been better in the tv hustings. I just hope something will occur to convince me one way or another.

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Tue 21 Jul, 2015 12:01 pm

PorFavor wrote:I noticed that Ed Miliband wasn't listed amongst the "no" voters yesterday (Sadiq Khan was). Was he (EM) there - and how did he vote? Does anyone know, please?

He voted for Labour's amendment & abstained in the vote for 2nd reading.

I still don't understand what all the sound & fury is for - it's the committee stage where amendments will be made & improvements made to the bill & regardless of what we say, the public do support reducing tax credits for households with more than 2 children & reducing the cap - that includes a large percentage of Labour voters too:

Immediately after the Budget YouGov tested a number of Osborne’s policies. The table below shows the results. Not surprisingly, Labour voters, like most others, back the increase in the tax allowance and the uprating of the minimum wage. But there is also widespread support among Labour voters for limiting child tax credits in future to two children per family, and lowering the cap on total benefits to £23,000 a year in London and £20,000 a year outside London.

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/07/20/co ... tly-right/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Tue 21 Jul, 2015 12:05 pm

@pk1

Thank you!

utopiandreams · Post by **utopiandreams** » Tue 21 Jul, 2015 12:05 pm

SpinningHugo wrote:... Abstaining and then saying you oppose just makes you look like an opportunist (which, of course, he is.)

Forgive me if I'm wrong, SH, because I didn't read the article about his declaring he'd abstain but I'm pretty sure he made his position clear beforehand.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Tue 21 Jul, 2015 12:09 pm

SpinningHugo wrote: They both should have been forced out once it became clear they would lose and there was an alternative.

Only there wasn't a clear alternative, especially in Ed's case, which is why it never happened. Which is why Labour is struggling now. The broad church should naturally come together in the middle, but both left and right within Labour are equally contemptuous of those, such as Burnham and Cooper, that represent that middle. These vocal minorities are off- putting to those of a moderate social democrat viewpoint such as myself. Until Labour can unite around the points all parties agree on ( it should have been easy for every Labour MP to oppose the reduction in the ESA rate) there is little hope of building a vote winning party.

AngryAsWell · Post by **AngryAsWell** » Tue 21 Jul, 2015 12:12 pm

Willow904 wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote: They both should have been forced out once it became clear they would lose and there was an alternative.
Only there wasn't a clear alternative, especially in Ed's case, which is why it never happened. Which is why Labour is struggling now. The broad church should naturally come together in the middle, but both left and right within Labour are equally contemptuous of those, such as Burnham and Cooper, that represent that middle. These vocal minorities are off- putting to those of a moderate social democrat viewpoint such as myself. Until Labour can unite around the points all parties agree on ( it should have been easy for every Labour MP to oppose the reduction in the ESA rate) there is little hope of building a vote winning party.

Agree - 100%

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Tue 21 Jul, 2015 12:21 pm

Willow904 wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote: They both should have been forced out once it became clear they would lose and there was an alternative.
Only there wasn't a clear alternative, especially in Ed's case, which is why it never happened. Which is why Labour is struggling now. The broad church should naturally come together in the middle, but both left and right within Labour are equally contemptuous of those, such as Burnham and Cooper, that represent that middle. These vocal minorities are off- putting to those of a moderate social democrat viewpoint such as myself. Until Labour can unite around the points all parties agree on ( it should have been easy for every Labour MP to oppose the reduction in the ESA rate) there is little hope of building a vote winning party.

Agreed.

( it should have been easy for every Labour MP to oppose the reduction in the ESA rate)

As I'm sure they would have but to do so would have meant opposing the proposed apprenticeships & national living wage (I know, I know it isn't but bear with me) & then that would have been flung in their faces too !

To have a bill that covers all different elements such as this Welfare & Work Bill means that a) Osborne has been strategically brilliant & b) there are elements within the bill that Labour MPs both oppose & agree with & c) whatever they do, Labour MPs can't do right for doing wrong with some people & unfortunately, it's the twitterati that shout loudest but think - where were they on May 7th when their much-declared 'support' for Labour was extinguished by the majority of people who didn't vote Labour.

Don't be misled by the shrieking on social media - Labour must carry the public & there is clear evidence that the public agree that cuts to social security is what they want to see.

Labour's job is to expose the frailties of the bill & highlight how it will affect ordinary people, hence Frank Field's speech on 'strivers' yesterday.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Tue 21 Jul, 2015 12:23 pm

utopiandreams wrote:Sorry I don't remember who provided the link but I've just started to look at the government's Benefit Cap Briefing Paper. Yesterday IDS was challenged in the House to explain the reduction the benefit cap from £26000 to £20000 or £23000 if calculated on median earnings and could he explain the drop in median earnings during the intervening period. His reply was that the previous cap was based on gross pay and the new on nett after tax and NI. Liar! Liar! Liar!

From the briefing paper:

The 2010 Spending Review announced that from 2013 household welfare payments will be capped on the basis of median earnings after tax and national insurance contributions for working households
Maybe not the most important matter, nevertheless MPs and ministers must be reprimanded for misleading the House. It used to be a resigning matter for ministers in the past.

Edit: the paper: http://researchbriefings.files.parliame ... N06294.pdf

Get on to Andrew Dilnot at UK Stats.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Tue 21 Jul, 2015 12:24 pm

Willow904 wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote: They both should have been forced out once it became clear they would lose and there was an alternative.
Only there wasn't a clear alternative, especially in Ed's case, which is why it never happened. Which is why Labour is struggling now. The broad church should naturally come together in the middle, but both left and right within Labour are equally contemptuous of those, such as Burnham and Cooper, that represent that middle. These vocal minorities are off- putting to those of a moderate social democrat viewpoint such as myself. Until Labour can unite around the points all parties agree on ( it should have been easy for every Labour MP to oppose the reduction in the ESA rate) there is little hope of building a vote winning party.

Well, one of those wings is set to utterly crash and burn a couple of months from now - which will be a defining moment; indeed arguably as significant as the crushing rejection of Benn's challenge against Kinnock in 1988 (and for the same reason, the vast bulk of the party didn't/don't WANT what they are offering) That made clear the old style "hard left" were no longer a significant factor in the party, which left them basically three choices:

1) adapt to the new realities (as the likes of Meacher and Mullin did)
2) remain as a relatively marginal "ginger group" in the party, acting as its "conscience" on occasions (Benn himself did this, as did Corbyn)
3) leave (some did, including Scargill)

I expect that the hardcore "Progress" faction who provide almost all Kendall's rump support will face a similar choice in September - and will also split three ways.

Whatever happens, it will be a watershed.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Tue 21 Jul, 2015 12:29 pm

Willow904 wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote: both left and right within Labour.

I am not sure there is much of the latter left. We'll see when Kendall's votes are counted.

The membership were always quite a long way to the left of the PLP. The Unions were historically a counterweight. That has all gone.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Tue 21 Jul, 2015 12:29 pm

pk1 wrote:
Willow904 wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote: They both should have been forced out once it became clear they would lose and there was an alternative.
Only there wasn't a clear alternative, especially in Ed's case, which is why it never happened. Which is why Labour is struggling now. The broad church should naturally come together in the middle, but both left and right within Labour are equally contemptuous of those, such as Burnham and Cooper, that represent that middle. These vocal minorities are off- putting to those of a moderate social democrat viewpoint such as myself. Until Labour can unite around the points all parties agree on ( it should have been easy for every Labour MP to oppose the reduction in the ESA rate) there is little hope of building a vote winning party.
Agreed.

( it should have been easy for every Labour MP to oppose the reduction in the ESA rate)
As I'm sure they would have but to do so would have meant opposing the proposed apprenticeships & national living wage (I know, I know it isn't but bear with me) & then that would have been flung in their faces too !

To have a bill that covers all different elements such as this Welfare & Work Bill means that a) Osborne has been strategically brilliant & b) there are elements within the bill that Labour MPs both oppose & agree with & c) whatever they do, Labour MPs can't do right for doing wrong with some people & unfortunately, it's the twitterati that shout loudest but think - where were they on May 7th when their much-declared 'support' for Labour was extinguished by the majority of people who didn't vote Labour.

Don't be misled by the shrieking on social media - Labour must carry the public & there is clear evidence that the public agree that cuts to social security is what they want to see.

Labour's job is to expose the frailties of the bill & highlight how it will affect ordinary people, hence Frank Field's speech on 'strivers' yesterday.

Yes, I agree. An abstention will soon be forgotten. The important bit is making sure Labour point out what is wrong with the bill and why. And you're right, Frank Field's 'strivers' speech was very good, much to my surprise.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Tue 21 Jul, 2015 12:34 pm

Not just Field, but J Rentoul, thought Harman got her tactics all wrong. Nuff said.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Tue 21 Jul, 2015 12:42 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:
Whatever happens, it will be a watershed.

I think you are understating what has already happened. Blair was an anomaly, tolerated because he won and won again. Only now are we truly seeing the significance of the death of the stabilizing power of rightwing unionism. (And it is dead. As dead as dead can be.) The membership were and are to the left of the PLP, and giving them the power they now have moves the party quickly left.

The 2015 intake of MPs is considerably to the left of the PLP as it was. The rebels on the Welfare Bill were disproportionately the new faces. That the younger intake are prepared to give up on chances of promotion by rebelling in such a high profile way shows a big shift.

I am both sad for, and impressed by Kendall. Sad because she will obviously lose, and badly. Proud because unlike more high profile people who agree with her (Umunna, Hunt) she was prepared to stand.

Umunna is a mystery to me. How has the man who campaigned for Ed as leader gone through such a conversion? He is, of course, right to have done so.

Cooper is now the least worst option, she might inch us a step forward. Maybe. Burnham will take us backwards.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Tue 21 Jul, 2015 12:53 pm

Umunna is a shallow opportunist, is the simplest answer to that. The fact he has been so ready to rubbish Labour members and voters may have sunk him for good.

Hunt was prepared to stand, but couldn't find the support. It didn't help that too much of his output (warbling on about Waitrose and the like, how many of his Stoke Central constituents are regulars there?) played into the widespread - even if unfair - stereotype of him as an out of touch parachuted in toff.

I will admit Kendall has cojones, so to speak. But everything else about her campaign (after an initially promising start when she seemed ready to portray herself as a Blairish but still broadly "unifying" candidate) has been a car crash and has hideously misjudged the general mood within the party. Like the SLab "campaign from hell" fronted by Murphy, it will go down in future textbooks as an exemplar of how *not* do do these things.

Btw I don't think that the cause of "moderate" trade unionism is finished, as I have said before. You have also claimed that Scotland is lost to Labour for good, again I disagree. In both cases the current "hegemonists" will become complacent and sloppy and make misjudgements - these need to be taken advantage of.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Tue 21 Jul, 2015 1:10 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote: In both cases the current "hegemonists" will become complacent and sloppy and make misjudgements - these need to be taken advantage of.

Something might, indeed, turn up.

I think that is Labour's position for 2020, and probably 2025.

I don't like that, but the people who agree with me are a tiny demonised minority.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Tue 21 Jul, 2015 1:15 pm

Think the only hope is to go for vaguely progressive tax rises. The aging population will do for public services otherwise.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Tue 21 Jul, 2015 1:17 pm

That is because (I know I am simplifying here, but......) "people like you" seem to argue that agreeing the Tories are right about loads of stuff is the only way forward.

Where is the evidence that this works, even? Blair actually offered a clear alternative in 1997, on basically the same manifesto John Smith would have advocated had he lived. The major "change" he had implemented was rewriting Clause 4 - very important symbolically, but making little practical difference.

The "why won't people just vote for the real thing?" objection is a very valid one - you even get it a lot in those dreaded focus groups

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Tue 21 Jul, 2015 1:25 pm

pk1 wrote:
PorFavor wrote:I noticed that Ed Miliband wasn't listed amongst the "no" voters yesterday (Sadiq Khan was). Was he (EM) there - and how did he vote? Does anyone know, please?
He voted for Labour's amendment & abstained in the vote for 2nd reading.

I still don't understand what all the sound & fury is for - it's the committee stage where amendments will be made & improvements made to the bill & regardless of what we say, the public do support reducing tax credits for households with more than 2 children & reducing the cap - that includes a large percentage of Labour voters too:

Immediately after the Budget YouGov tested a number of Osborne’s policies. The table below shows the results. Not surprisingly, Labour voters, like most others, back the increase in the tax allowance and the uprating of the minimum wage. But there is also widespread support among Labour voters for limiting child tax credits in future to two children per family, and lowering the cap on total benefits to £23,000 a year in London and £20,000 a year outside London.
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/07/20/co ... tly-right/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Exactly.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Tue 21 Jul, 2015 1:30 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:That is because (I know I am simplifying here, but......) "people like you" seem to argue that agreeing the Tories are right about loads of stuff is the only way forward.

I don't think so. 'People like me' (but not me?) think that the best way forward is still triangulation. Steal the best ideas from left and right and run with them.

So, on housing combine a Land Value Tax with removing planning restrictions.

On poverty, a guaranteed minimum using a simplified negative tax system. Something uniting the Greens and the Adam Smith Institute.

On health, no return to the early 80s (or before that the quite different 60s) structures. Do what works. Government frequently has to be the enemy of those employed to provide public services (something the Tories take to extreme lengths of course).

On the economy, establish constantly economc rectitude, whilst explaining that at the zlb infrastructure investment is essential.

And so on.

Don't steal the worst ideas from left and right (as Osborne did with cutting tax credits whilst raising the minimum wage).

Blair was much more radical than Smith was. (Mainly because he was cleverer. Smith did more than anyone else to lose the 1992 election.) Doing radical things doesn't mean being rightwing.

Burnham is almost exactly the kind of leader I don't want. Comfort blanket Labour.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Tue 21 Jul, 2015 1:31 pm

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Tue 21 Jul, 2015 1:31 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Umunna is a shallow opportunist, is the simplest answer to that. The fact he has been so ready to rubbish Labour members and voters may have sunk him for good.

Hunt was prepared to stand, but couldn't find the support. It didn't help that too much of his output (warbling on about Waitrose and the like, how many of his Stoke Central constituents are regulars there?) played into the widespread - even if unfair - stereotype of him as an out of touch parachuted in toff.

I will admit Kendall has cojones, so to speak. But everything else about her campaign (after an initially promising start when she seemed ready to portray herself as a Blairish but still broadly "unifying" candidate) has been a car crash and has hideously misjudged the general mood within the party. Like the SLab "campaign from hell" fronted by Murphy, it will go down in future textbooks as an exemplar of how *not* do do these things.

Btw I don't think that the cause of "moderate" trade unionism is finished, as I have said before. You have also claimed that Scotland is lost to Labour for good, again I disagree. In both cases the current "hegemonists" will become complacent and sloppy and make misjudgements - these need to be taken advantage of.

I could have got behind Hunt. I thought he was very electable and tends to be more upbeat than Kendall or Umunna. Even Umunna could have kept the Labour right in the race, as he has his moments. Kendall is just poor all round. Patronising, poor delivery and sounds so Tory one has to assume she is nowhere near as bad in reality and thus is hopeless at conveying her true meaning. I'm still half-convinced she's only in the race to make Cooper appear more moderate (if so, it's working). Hunt may yet get his chance. If whoever gets voted leader doesn't do so with a big margin there could be more tussles at the top to come.