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

It isn't just numbers.

 

It's how people perceive their own lives and how that relates to what the parties are saying and doing.

 

I think there is a great danger for Labour at the moment of simply looking irrelevant.

 

This article illustrates it to some extent.

 

Yes, but for every Stephen Crabb they have 10 or more Gideons, Boris's or, heaven help us, Jacob Rees-Moggs.

 

The Tory party has always attracted a small minority of working class MPs, they've even been known to elect some as leader, Ted Heath and Margaret Thatcher. Although, both of those went to great lengths to disguise their humble roots; aping the speech, mannerisms and dress of their chosen sect. 

Edited by Griff9of13

"it is a well known fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're going to have to explain to me why it's a bad thing for Labour to have these conversations.

 

Corbyn is not someone I would ever vote for, and I agree very much with Bowes' comments on him and a certain element on the left, but that doesn't mean you shut down those in the party with these views. That's exactly what the Blairites did for 15 years and it created a PLP dominated by one wing of the party - a wing that doesn't appear to be particularly big within the membership if the current election is any guide. Which probably explains the nonsense coming out of Chuka Umunna who assumed a Miliband defeat meant a return to him and his ilk being in charge. 

 

The 'Corbynites' are as bad as the 'Blairites' if this is any guide to their intentions:

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-leadership-contest-senior-party-figures-forecast-doom-after-jeremy-corbyn-surge-10395071.html

One member of Mr Corbyn’s campaign suggested that if he won he would “swiftly and brutally” isolate Blairites in the hope of forcing them out of the party.

“The Parliamentary Labour Party will have to be brought into line, some members of party staff will need to be pointed towards the exit, and the party structures would need to undergo a comprehensive review,” said Max Shanly, who sits on the National Committee of Young Labour.


.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its my opinion that David Miliband is waiting in the wings to become an MP again when the opportunity arises.

I think that when Labour lose the next General election their will be a call for a new Labour leader and that's  when i think he will make his move for the leadership.

I genuinely believe that if he had become the Labour leader instead of his brother Labour would have won the General Election.

I'm not saying i agree with his policies, but a lot of people do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 'Corbynites' are as bad as the 'Blairites' if this is any guide to their intentions:

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-leadership-contest-senior-party-figures-forecast-doom-after-jeremy-corbyn-surge-10395071.html

One member of Mr Corbyn’s campaign suggested that if he won he would “swiftly and brutally” isolate Blairites in the hope of forcing them out of the party.

“The Parliamentary Labour Party will have to be brought into line, some members of party staff will need to be pointed towards the exit, and the party structures would need to undergo a comprehensive review,” said Max Shanly, who sits on the National Committee of Young Labour.

 

Found the full interview with this Max Shanly character. Rap on the knuckles for The Indy for describing him as a member of Corbyn's campaign when he isn't. Didn't take me long to find that out, why couldn't they be bothered checking?

 

http://rs21.org.uk/2015/07/13/understanding-the-corbyn-campaign-an-interview-with-max-shanly/


.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Found the full interview with this Max Shanly character. Rap on the knuckles for The Indy for describing him as a member of Corbyn's campaign when he isn't. Didn't take me long to find that out, why couldn't they be bothered checking?

 

http://rs21.org.uk/2015/07/13/understanding-the-corbyn-campaign-an-interview-with-max-shanly/

If the Blairites leave the Labour party i don't think we will see another Labour government in my lifetime.

Harold Wilson once said Labour was a broad church and it will need to be to be elected again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Harold Wilson once said Labour was a broad church and it will need to be to be elected again.

 

He was right. And he won four General Elections n'all. Not to be sniffed at.


.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He was right. And he won four General Elections n'all. Not to be sniffed at.

But he only won one with a workable majority.  Labour went to the country in 1945 with a radical programme and transformed this country.  Labour lost the last election badly because they took the line of least restistance.  They thought all they had to do was get out the core vote, reap the benefits of disillusioned Lib./Dem voters, and with the other parties they'd get rid of Cameron. Instead of campaigning for what they believed in, what was n their manifesto, and making the Tories answer for their appalling record, they just sat there waiting for the apple to fall off the tree.  Well they got a very rude awakening at 10-00pm on 7th May 2015.  Labour needs to stand for something, to enthuse people.  New Labour won three elections by being "Tory lite."  The plan was to appeal to the middle classes, the Tory voters who'd been alienated by the late 80's recession, and let the hardcore Labour vote please itself.  Where else were they going to go?   Well that won't work now because in 2015 they went to the SNP and UKIP. Labour needs a rabble rousing cause.  The new leader needs to expose Cameron for the hypocrite and posturing oaf that he really is.  The first task is to nail the lie that Labour's overspending caused the deficit and the recession. OK it's history by now but the millstone is till there around Labour's neck and it needs to be got rid of.  Then all the other Tory half truths and cover-ups can be exposed for what they are. But we need someone brave who can discomfit Cameron.  For me that person is a woman.  He his hopeless with women. It has to be Yvette Cooper for me. Apart from any other consideration, she'll have husband Ed to advise her.

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

I agree very much with this:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/17/labour-story-leader-communication

Labour have to talk in a language people understand.  Like they understood "tough on crime tough on the causes of crime" Perhaps then they'll make some progress


“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 needed a candidate that was somewhere between Corbyn and the other 3.


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

They needed a candidate that was somewhere between Corbyn and the other 3.

Someone about as left wing as Ed Miliband just more charisma would have done nicely

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone about as left wing as Ed Miliband just more charisma would have done nicely

 

My own opinion is that Ed's ideas were not what 'lost it' for him... it was him.  He didn't project a 'Prime minister' image,


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

My own opinion is that Ed's ideas were not what 'lost it' for him... it was him. He didn't project a 'Prime minister' image,

I feel the same about Corbyn. No matter how sensible his ideas may be, I doubt they will carry across.


"it is a well known fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel the same about Corbyn. No matter how sensible his ideas may be, I doubt they will carry across.

The thing is his economic ideas will find some support (not enough to win), but his views on other issues are horrific. Noone wants a Hamas worshipping prime minister

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel the same about Corbyn. No matter how sensible his ideas may be, I doubt they will carry across.

The press won't let them. No matter how sensible they are. His every move will be mocked. Remember Foot and the "donkey jacket" at the Cenotaph.  He was a lamb to the slaughter.  


“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

Nope, don't buy it at all.  That focus group looks very well targeted with its inclusion criteria.  I wouldn't be surprised if it were fudged to exclude those with views troublesome to the report creators.  Even Pudsey is one of those constituencies that was never a realistic win opportunity this time around for Labour.  I can guarantee they'd get wildly different results if they ran it in areas like Labour heartlands in the North of England, Scotland or Wales.

 

Lies, damned lies and focus groups.  I'm fed up of focus groups, they're for weathercock MPs who change their views depending on the focus group rather than representing what they truly believe.  You'll never see the likes of Cameron, Osborne or IDS change their opinion on things unless there's a genuine chance of defeat in the Commons, fox hunting is a perfect example, all opinion polls were showing a huge public distaste for repeal so they fudged it yet opinion still was strongly against but they went ahead anyway with trying to force it through, only the threat of the SNP crashing the party and a near definite defeat (caused by Tory rebels, not the SNP) stopped them.  The report creators can take their focus groups and ram them up their narrowly focussed posteriors.


"When in deadly danger, when beset by doubt; run in little circles, wave your arms and shout"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some may find it sober and depressing, as far as I'm concerned it's hit the nail on the head why I wouldn't vote labour.

 

From a Labour perspective, discovering why people don't or won't vote for you anymore is the sobering and depressing bit.


.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Given that General Elections only happen every 5 years there's very little else for psephologists to write about between elections.  This sort of 'can Labour/Tories ever win again' angle has been a predictable output of their particular 'science' since the 1950s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope, don't buy it at all.  That focus group looks very well targeted with its inclusion criteria.  I wouldn't be surprised if it were fudged to exclude those with views troublesome to the report creators.  Even Pudsey is one of those constituencies that was never a realistic win opportunity this time around for Labour.  I can guarantee they'd get wildly different results if they ran it in areas like Labour heartlands in the North of England, Scotland or Wales.

 

Lies, damned lies and focus groups.  I'm fed up of focus groups, they're for weathercock MPs who change their views depending on the focus group rather than representing what they truly believe.  You'll never see the likes of Cameron, Osborne or IDS change their opinion on things unless there's a genuine chance of defeat in the Commons, fox hunting is a perfect example, all opinion polls were showing a huge public distaste for repeal so they fudged it yet opinion still was strongly against but they went ahead anyway with trying to force it through, only the threat of the SNP crashing the party and a near definite defeat (caused by Tory rebels, not the SNP) stopped them.  The report creators can take their focus groups and ram them up their narrowly focussed posteriors.

 

Isn't that a bit like sticking your fingers in your ears and going lalala because you don't want to hear someting that doesn't accord with your existing views?

 

This report consists of comments from people who voted Labour in 2010 but didn't in 2015. If their views aren't important, whose are?

 

Are you suggesting Labour shouldn't try and discover where it went wrong, and if that doesn't involve asking people who don't vote Labour anymore, what else does it involve?

 

Pudsey is just around the corner from me. It was definitely a key Labour target in 2015 and they poured A LOT of resources into trying to win it.


.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given that General Elections only happen every 5 years there's very little else for psephologists to write about between elections.  This sort of 'can Labour/Tories ever win again' angle has been a predictable output of their particular 'science' since the 1950s.

 

So we just sit on our hands for five years and hope the wind changes direction?


.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So we just sit on our hands for five years and hope the wind changes direction?

 

No at all. However, you have used a very appropriate metaphor there John. It's the weather vane versus signpost analogy of Tony Benn's that Mhairi Black so eloquently restated last week. If by "we" you mean Labour then they need to realise that their future electoral success lies in adopting, or going back, to policies that mean something to the people who used to vote for them - the people of Scotland didn't abandon Labour wholesale because they wanted more austerity. Labour needs to signpost a future without austerity not follow the weather vane of focus groups and media lies. The more Labour tries to occupy the same ground as the Tories the more support it will lose.  As I've said before, Labour needs to fight for the votes of the 76% who didn't vote Tory not the 24% who did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't that a bit like sticking your fingers in your ears and going lalala because you don't want to hear someting that doesn't accord with your existing views?

 

This report consists of comments from people who voted Labour in 2010 but didn't in 2015. If their views aren't important, whose are?

 

Are you suggesting Labour shouldn't try and discover where it went wrong, and if that doesn't involve asking people who don't vote Labour anymore, what else does it involve?

 

Pudsey is just around the corner from me. It was definitely a key Labour target in 2015 and they poured A LOT of resources into trying to win it.

Labour went wrong by thoroughly distancing themselves from their core vote.  If they were serious about why they lost then they should ask every Labour member who has not renewed or has cancelled their memberships in the last decade, especially the last five years, all across the country, not just Tory marginal seats.

 

The really telling loss for Labour wasn't in this general election, it was in 2010 when they lost Redcar, not a single lesson was learned there and the only reason they got it back this time is because the Lib Dems disintegrated, not because they fixed anything.  Redcar was one of those things that in the NHS are called "never events" in that they should never happen, the formerly staunch Labour heartland seat rebelled because they were being treated abysmally by their MP and the party.  2015 writ large was Scotland where they realised there was a genuine alternative for them in the SNP.  To be honest, if there were a genuine alternative to the Labour party elsewhere in Britain then Labour would be facing devastation now rather than just a bruising defeat, if the Lib Dems hadn't been tainted blue then they'd be smugly sitting on an increased number of MPs.

 

Remember, the Tories only have a majority of 12, Labour has 232 MPs DESPITE Scotland, compare that with 1997 with Labour having a majority of 179 and the Tories on 165 MPs.  No-one then was suggesting the Tories take a surge to the left because they'd lost the electorate...  Don't fall for the spin of those who see Labour as the alternative to the Tory party that they just didn't have enough money to influence.


"When in deadly danger, when beset by doubt; run in little circles, wave your arms and shout"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No at all. However, you have used a very appropriate metaphor there John. It's the weather vane versus signpost analogy of Tony Benn's that Mhairi Black so eloquently restated last week. If by "we" you mean Labour then they need to realise that their future electoral success lies in adopting, or going back, to policies that mean something to the people who used to vote for them - the people of Scotland didn't abandon Labour wholesale because they wanted more austerity. Labour needs to signpost a future without austerity not follow the weather vane of focus groups and media lies. The more Labour tries to occupy the same ground as the Tories the more support it will lose.  As I've said before, Labour needs to fight for the votes of the 76% who didn't vote Tory not the 24% who did.

 

You make it sound so simple, it's wonder the Tories have ever won a General Election.


.

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...