Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
John Drake

Labour leadership contest

Which of the candidates would make you more likely to vote Labour if they win the leadership?  

55 members have voted

  1. 1. Which of the candidates would make you more likely to vote Labour if they win the leadership?

    • Andy Burnham
      13
    • Yvette Cooper
      13
    • Jeremy Corbyn
      14
    • Liz Kendall
      7
    • I would never vote Labour
      8
  2. 2. Did you vote Labour in the 2015 General Election?

    • Yes
      26
    • No
      29
  3. 3. Do you have a vote in the Labour leadership election?

    • Yes
      11
    • No
      44
  4. 4. Who would you vote for in the Labour leadership election?

    • Andy Burnham
      15
    • Yvette Cooper
      13
    • Jeremy Corbyn
      18
    • Liz Kendall
      9


Recommended Posts

As far as the SNP goes Labour has two choices, abandon any ambition in Scotland and get into bed with the SNP, or oppose them with as much vigour as possible.  The first option would be poison in England, but in order to opt for the second option Labour would have to become IMO more left wing than at the present, which could also be poison in England, a difficult dilemma.  Of course if Labour could get out the voters in England who didn't vote last time, who stand to gain most from a Labour government there wouldn't be a problem.  But  that's easier said than done.

Edited by Trojan

“Few thought him even a starter.There were many who thought themselves smarter. But he ended PM, CH and OM. An Earl and a Knight of the Garter.”

Clement Attlee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given that the fear of a Labour/SNP deal amongst English voters was a significant contributory factor to Labour losing in 2015, it would seem to me to be essential for any future Labour leader to defuse that particular timebomb before it explodes again in 2020.

 

The new Labour leader, whoever it is, needs to focus on winning back ground from the SNP in Scotland, not permanently surrender it.

 

If we learned anything from the result in 2015 it is that the SNP are poisonous to Labour's electoral fortunes both north and south of the border and that does not make them potential future bedfellows.

If people didn't vote Labour because of the right-wing media boogey-man of the SNP threat then they're idiots deserving of serious contempt.  Labour is a lost cause in Scotland for the next few years and giving a blanket snub to the SNP just makes exactly the same mistakes the Tories did when they were annihilated in Scotland.  The Tories did a black/white binary choice in 1997 of "vote for us or look at this evil Labour party you'll get" and the Scots refused to accept this blackmail and voted Labour with a complete wipeout of Tory MPs.  Labour have just given a black/white binary choice of "vote for us or get Tories" at the last election and the Scots have said voted bluntly that they won't accept this blackmail and voted SNP with a nearly total wipeout of their MPs. 

 

Next year's MSP elections will be just as bad for Labour if they keep going the way they are, they're retreating to London even more than in the past, pointing north of the border and quite bluntly saying to the Scots that they're idiots if they keep voting for the SNP.  That'll teach them then, won't it?  That'll get them doffing their caps and putting their X in the box next to a Labour candidate.  Some of the Labour arrogance and condescension towards their own support is staggering.

 

What do Labour think they'll achieve by vilifying the SNP?  What about vilifying the Tories?  What about addressing the old Labour voters who only voted Labour grudgingly with a pinched-nose because there was no other reasonable choice?

 

Back in 2010, Labour lost Redcar, a core Labour heartland constituency due to their arrogance and lack of care for their own support.  They learned nothing from that and it was repeated en-masse in Scotland in 2015.  Yes, they gained Redcar back but that was more due to the Lib Dems than their own success.


“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime" - Mark Twain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as the SNP goes Labour has two choices, abandon any ambition in Scotland and get into bed with the SNP, or oppose them with as much vigour as possible.  The first option would be poison in England, but in order to opt for the second option Labour would have to become IMO more left wing than at the present, which could also be poison in England, a difficult dilemma.  Of course if Labour could get out the voters in England who didn't vote last time, who stand to gain most from a Labour government there wouldn't be a problem.  But  that's easier said than done.

 

It certainly is.


.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the best, thats a good bit of PR, though I would say the Bedford team, theres, like, you know, 13 blokes who can get together at the weekend to have a game together, which doesnt point to expansion of the game. Point, yeah go on!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Go Corbyn. Please choose him! PLEASE!

Why would you want them to choose him?  Why would you want the country's principal opposition party to have a leader who possibly made it unelectable? Surely the whole point of our electoral system is that the government are kept on their toes by the possibility that the other lot will get in.  Otherwise they beome lazy and corrupt, like the Tories did in the late eighties and early nineties.


“Few thought him even a starter.There were many who thought themselves smarter. But he ended PM, CH and OM. An Earl and a Knight of the Garter.”

Clement Attlee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would you want them to choose him?  Why would you want the country's principal opposition party to have a leader who possibly made it unelectable? Surely the whole point of our electoral system is that the government are kept on their toes by the possibility that the other lot will get in.  Otherwise they beome lazy and corrupt, like the Tories did in the late eighties and early nineties.

Exactly, for the Tories just think about how much Blair was able to do almost unopposed because of the pathetic leadership of IDS and Howard.  Compare that to 1997-2001 when Hague's strong leadership forced Blair to be a lot more open and honest than he was in the rest of his leadership.  A strong opposition is vital to the country.


“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime" - Mark Twain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No I'm not.  I'm involved with construction machinery and I go around the various plant yards and hear the complaints and see all the machines standing idle.  And of course if proof were needed that the wheels have come off the "long term economic plan" you only have to look at the cancellation of the rail electrification.  They're trying to blame Railtrack but as usual with the Tories it's someone else's fault.  It's Dave and George's fault, they don't want to pay for it.  They disgust me.

Plenty of construction going on here in St Helens, predominantly house building.  A new batch of it has just been given planning permission.  Perhaps the degree of construction activity is simply varying from place to place.

 

The electrification hasn't been cancelled according to the government, but postponed.  As usual the costs were spiralling out of control.  I'd rather have something put on hold until costs can be brought under control than the government spend tax payers money recklessly.

 

People on the left have been claiming that Osborne's 'long term economic plan' has been unravelling for the last five years.  Reality says differently however.

Edited by Saintslass

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plenty of construction going on here in St Helens, predominantly house building.  A new batch of it has just been given planning permission.  Perhaps the degree of construction activity is simply varying from place to place.

 

The electrification hasn't been cancelled according to the government, but postponed.  As usual the costs were spiralling out of control.  I'd rather have something put on hold until costs can be brought under control than the government spend tax payers money recklessly.

 

People on the left have been claiming that Osborne's 'long term economic plan' has been unravelling for the last five years.  Reality says differently however.

 

The electrification was 'postponed' almost within days after the election, despite having been firmly promised beforehand by the party that subsequently won. Given that they were already in government before the election, it is inconceivable to me that they did not know at the time what they were promising was a complete fiction. And we wonder why people have lost faith in politicians and their promises. This is why.

 

As for the 'long term economic plan', give me strength. It changes depending on which way the wind is blowing. Remember, in 2010, the deficit was going to be eliminated by 2015 according to Osborne, as a result of his 'long term economic plan'. But he got nowehere near, having caused the country to slump back into recession for three years, so now we are facing another five years of austerity, this time to generate an unecessary surplus.

 

What's the point of having a surplus if the country's infrastructure has fallen to bits around you in the meantime?

 

Labour may be in disarray at the moment, and isn't making the arguments it ought to be doing against the government, but that doesn't mean the Tories have the remotest clue themsleves on what they are doing. I think that will become ever clearer as the next five years grind on.


.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The electrification was 'postponed' almost within days after the election, despite having been firmly promised beforehand by the party that subsequently won. Given that they were already in government before the election, it is inconceivable to me that they did not know at the time what they were promising was a complete fiction. And we wonder why people have lost faith in politicians and their promises. This is why.

 

They may well have known but they were in coalition and they would not have known what the situation would be post election.  Had they not been in coalition prior to the election the Tories may well have postponed the electrification plans then. 

 

 

As for the 'long term economic plan', give me strength. It changes depending on which way the wind is blowing. Remember, in 2010, the deficit was going to be eliminated by 2015 according to Osborne, as a result of his 'long term economic plan'. But he got nowehere near, having caused the country to slump back into recession for three years, so now we are facing another five years of austerity, this time to generate an unecessary surplus.

Plans are not set in stone.  Only Ed Milliband thinks they are.  You have a plan but if something happens out of the blue or if things are not developing in the way you anticipated, it is wise to adapt your plan.  The principles upon which the 'long term economic plan' are based - smaller welfare, work pays, getting down the deficit - are all still there but the manner in which they are being addressed has altered slightly as the economic environment and other factors have altered.

 

You are showing your left wing leanings by claiming a surplus is unnecessary!  That's exactly why Labour are not trusted by many voters.  A surplus is very useful for the tough times and it allows then any additional money to go towards bringing down the national debt.  Had the last Labour administration run a surplus instead of a massive deficit then maybe some of the cuts would not have been necessary when the difficult times - the banking crash and its fallout - came along.  Difficult times always come along.  I just happen to think that the Tories have a better idea of what needs to be done to protect the country from the worst impact of them.  If the new Labour leadership continues to think like yourself then clearly they do not.

 

Had the Tories been voted in on their own in 2010 I think the deficit would have gone by now.  I think the Tories would have cut harshly and quickly and the pain would have been awful but, like in Ireland (except without help from the IMF etc obviously), we would now have been coming through the other side and looking even better than we do.  But the LibDems put the brakes on and so matters have dragged on unnecessarily.  The Tories can't turn the clock back and they can't now make swingeing cuts as they could have done five years ago.  It would run too much risk to what has been a nice n steady economic recovery. 

 

 

 

What's the point of having a surplus if the country's infrastructure has fallen to bits around you in the meantime?

 

There is no indication at all that the country's infrastructure is falling to bits around us.  I think you are being a bit melodramatic.

 

 

Labour may be in disarray at the moment, and isn't making the arguments it ought to be doing against the government, but that doesn't mean the Tories have the remotest clue themsleves on what they are doing. I think that will become ever clearer as the next five years grind on.

Clearly the Tories haven't a clue, which is why unemployment is at its lowest in donkey's years, there is steady growth every quarter, why wages have been rising, etc, etc.  No, they have no idea what they are doing! 

Edited by Saintslass

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not holding my breath to see if it gets taken off hold or something replaces it that is half a job.

A surplus would be handy to make a vague attempt at paying off the country's debt.

It's currently 1.5trillion. GO won't go down as the best chancellor we ever seen but he won't be the worst. He has done averagly but its still better than ed balls could have hoped to do.


Homer: How is education supposed to make me feel smarter? Besides, every time I learn something new, it pushes some old stuff out of my brain. Remember when I took that home winemaking course, and I forgot how to drive?

[

i]Mr. Burns: Woah, slow down there maestro. There's a *New* Mexico?[/i]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not holding my breath to see if it gets taken off hold or something replaces it that is half a job.

A surplus would be handy to make a vague attempt at paying off the country's debt.

It's currently 1.5trillion. GO won't go down as the best chancellor we ever seen but he won't be the worst. He has done averagly but its still better than ed balls could have hoped to do.

It's interesting that this image of Ed Balls has been created and perpetuated by the Tories and their media lackies. Nick Robinson spent years criticising (and borderline ridiculing) Balls but then, the minute he lost his seat, described him as one of the finest economists in the country. 


"Just as we had been Cathars, we were treizistes, men apart."

Jean Roque, Calendrier-revue du Racing-Club Albigeois, 1958-1959

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately there are other media outlets that let people make a judgement on the character of people . I think he would have made a poor chancellor others may think differently , thankfully we won't find out.


Homer: How is education supposed to make me feel smarter? Besides, every time I learn something new, it pushes some old stuff out of my brain. Remember when I took that home winemaking course, and I forgot how to drive?

[

i]Mr. Burns: Woah, slow down there maestro. There's a *New* Mexico?[/i]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's interesting that this image of Ed Balls has been created and perpetuated by the Tories and their media lackies. Nick Robinson spent years criticising (and borderline ridiculing) Balls but then, the minute he lost his seat, described him as one of the finest economists in the country. 

The fact that we're not in the Euro and that the Bank of England is independent is down to Ed Balls. Balls would have made a great chancellor.  And of course he was right about the effects of Osborne's first budget too.


“Few thought him even a starter.There were many who thought themselves smarter. But he ended PM, CH and OM. An Earl and a Knight of the Garter.”

Clement Attlee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They may well have known but they were in coalition and they would not have known what the situation would be post election.  Had they not been in coalition prior to the election the Tories may well have postponed the electrification plans then. 

 

Plans are not set in stone.  Only Ed Milliband thinks they are.  You have a plan but if something happens out of the blue or if things are not developing in the way you anticipated, it is wise to adapt your plan.  The principles upon which the 'long term economic plan' are based - smaller welfare, work pays, getting down the deficit - are all still there but the manner in which they are being addressed has altered slightly as the economic environment and other factors have altered.

 

You are showing your left wing leanings by claiming a surplus is unnecessary!  That's exactly why Labour are not trusted by many voters.  A surplus is very useful for the tough times and it allows then any additional money to go towards bringing down the national debt.  Had the last Labour administration run a surplus instead of a massive deficit then maybe some of the cuts would not have been necessary when the difficult times - the banking crash and its fallout - came along.  Difficult times always come along.  I just happen to think that the Tories have a better idea of what needs to be done to protect the country from the worst impact of them.  If the new Labour leadership continues to think like yourself then clearly they do not.

 

Had the Tories been voted in on their own in 2010 I think the deficit would have gone by now.  I think the Tories would have cut harshly and quickly and the pain would have been awful but, like in Ireland (except without help from the IMF etc obviously), we would now have been coming through the other side and looking even better than we do.  But the LibDems put the brakes on and so matters have dragged on unnecessarily.  The Tories can't turn the clock back and they can't now make swingeing cuts as they could have done five years ago.  It would run too much risk to what has been a nice n steady economic recovery. 

 

 

There is no indication at all that the country's infrastructure is falling to bits around us.  I think you are being a bit melodramatic.

 

Clearly the Tories haven't a clue, which is why unemployment is at its lowest in donkey's years, there is steady growth every quarter, why wages have been rising, etc, etc.  No, they have no idea what they are doing! 

What planet are you on?  Cameron sat in the Look North studio in Leeds and said it would definitely go ahead, he must have know when he said this that it wouldn't.  The technical term for this is a lie.  A surplus is unnecessary.  Most of the money is owed to pension funds.  So the deficit doesn't really matter.  Even at the height of hysteria over the deficit when we were being compared to Greece, the foreign bankers were still willing to lend this country money are realistic interest rates.  The deficit is an excuse to shrink the state.  If you don't believe me look at the statement at the bottom of this post.


“Few thought him even a starter.There were many who thought themselves smarter. But he ended PM, CH and OM. An Earl and a Knight of the Garter.”

Clement Attlee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What planet are you on?  Cameron sat in the Look North studio in Leeds and said it would definitely go ahead, he must have know when he said this that it wouldn't.  The technical term for this is a lie.  A surplus is unnecessary.  Most of the money is owed to pension funds.  So the deficit doesn't really matter.  Even at the height of hysteria over the deficit when we were being compared to Greece, the foreign bankers were still willing to lend this country money are realistic interest rates.  The deficit is an excuse to shrink the state.  If you don't believe me look at the statement at the bottom of this post.

The deficit does matter.  Deficits always matter.  They matter in your bank balance and they matter in the country's bank balance.

Edited by Saintslass

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that we're not in the Euro and that the Bank of England is independent is down to Ed Balls. Balls would have made a great chancellor.  And of course he was right about the effects of Osborne's first budget too.

I thought it was Gordon Brown?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought it was Gordon Brown?

Well you thought wrong.


“Few thought him even a starter.There were many who thought themselves smarter. But he ended PM, CH and OM. An Earl and a Knight of the Garter.”

Clement Attlee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The deficit does matter.  Deficits always matter.  They matter in your bank balance and they matter in the country's bank balance.

They may matter but not to the extent that George pretends they do. After all he promised to cure it in a parliament, then by 2019, now it's 2020.  This ought to give the game away that it's just a fig leaf for shrinking the state.


“Few thought him even a starter.There were many who thought themselves smarter. But he ended PM, CH and OM. An Earl and a Knight of the Garter.”

Clement Attlee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They may matter but not to the extent that George pretends they do. After all he promised to cure it in a parliament, then by 2019, now it's 2020.  This ought to give the game away that it's just a fig leaf for shrinking the state.

I'm not remotely opposed to the state shrinking.  It had become way too big.

 

I doubt Osborne is pretending anything.  You may not agree with him but he seems absolutely convinced that the deficit matters. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well you thought wrong.

Gosh.  All those articles I have read on the BBC and the Guardian and other websites over the years have been crediting the wrong bloke then!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not remotely opposed to the state shrinking.  It had become way too big.

 

I doubt Osborne is pretending anything.  You may not agree with him but he seems absolutely convinced that the deficit matters. 

Of course it matters only an idiot would say different,i dont want my children and grandchildren to paying for stupidity of wasteful governments,belts need to be tightened,people need to be encouraged/pushed out of living of the state when perfectly able to work

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not remotely opposed to the state shrinking.  It had become way too big.

 

I doubt Osborne is pretending anything.  You may not agree with him but he seems absolutely convinced that the deficit matters. 

But he is pretending if he doesn't say outright that he's in favour of shrinking the state.  It's a viewpoint I don't share, but if that's what he believes he should have the courage to say so.  But of course if he did that his party wouldn't win many votes at the elections would they?


“Few thought him even a starter.There were many who thought themselves smarter. But he ended PM, CH and OM. An Earl and a Knight of the Garter.”

Clement Attlee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course it matters only an idiot would say different,i dont want my children and grandchildren to paying for stupidity of wasteful governments,belts need to be tightened,people need to be encouraged/pushed out of living of the state when perfectly able to work

Why don't you put another record on?  The one about the millionaire who pays no tax in the UK but happily uses the NHS and all the other state funded benefits?


“Few thought him even a starter.There were many who thought themselves smarter. But he ended PM, CH and OM. An Earl and a Knight of the Garter.”

Clement Attlee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...