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

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.

 

Lots of Tories thought they lost in 1997 because John Major wasn't right wing enough! David Cameron's whole raison d'etre as leader was to 'detoxify' the Tory Party, after they'd tried the nutty route to failure under Hague, IDS and Howard. Of course, now Labour has imploded again, they don't have to bother detoxifying anything. Full steam ahead to Thatcherville, no left turns, no stopping.

 

I just don't buy the myth that if Labour shifts strongly to the left that electoral success will follow. Where's the evidence? It's like 1983 never happened!


.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

I see what you're saying there John but don't understand why you think it's depressing. People and attitudes change and the Labour Party.should change to take these into account. They need to appeal to the majority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of Tories thought they lost in 1997 because John Major wasn't right wing enough! David Cameron's whole raison d'etre as leader was to 'detoxify' the Tory Party, after they'd tried the nutty route to failure under Hague, IDS and Howard. Of course, now Labour has imploded again, they don't have to bother detoxifying anything. Full steam ahead to Thatcherville, no left turns, no stopping.

 

I just don't buy the myth that if Labour shifts strongly to the left that electoral success will follow. Where's the evidence? It's like 1983 never happened!

I'm not saying a Corbyn driven shift to the left is what's needed, that'd be just as disastrous.  Why not have a look at why Labour won quite so heavily in 1997?  The message given then was all about hope and comparing that to the bitter negativeness of the Tories.  The Tories are still as bitterly negative now so a similar message should work.  Just point out how the bad things in life for those who struggle will be made better and sell it on a message of positivity.  Point out how state-ownership can be good, show the examples of the East Coast rail franchise and how the NHS doing things itself costs half of the equivalent private sector healthcare.  Look at other national welfare systems around the world that work and blatantly copy them in a desire to make food banks redundant.  Publicly state that you'll match the best of the G7 taxation regimes which will mean we're raising taxes back to 2010 levels, especially corporation tax.  Reopen the debate around regional assemblies, the SNP have made your argument for you, you just need to take it to the next level of playing off the different regions against each other, e.g. "why would someone in Bradford want their local policies driven from London or vice versa?"  Easy, isn't it?


"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

I'm not saying a Corbyn driven shift to the left is what's needed, that'd be just as disastrous.  Why not have a look at why Labour won quite so heavily in 1997?  The message given then was all about hope and comparing that to the bitter negativeness of the Tories.  The Tories are still as bitterly negative now so a similar message should work.  Just point out how the bad things in life for those who struggle will be made better and sell it on a message of positivity.  Point out how state-ownership can be good, show the examples of the East Coast rail franchise and how the NHS doing things itself costs half of the equivalent private sector healthcare.  Look at other national welfare systems around the world that work and blatantly copy them in a desire to make food banks redundant.  Publicly state that you'll match the best of the G7 taxation regimes which will mean we're raising taxes back to 2010 levels, especially corporation tax.  Reopen the debate around regional assemblies, the SNP have made your argument for you, you just need to take it to the next level of playing off the different regions against each other, e.g. "why would someone in Bradford want their local policies driven from London or vice versa?"  Easy, isn't it?

 

Yes, easy. Erk! ;)

 

So if we agree that Corbyn would be a disaster - as would Liz Kendall in my view as she represents the opposite extreme - which of the two remaining candidates are best placed to deliver on the above?

 

I've been torn between Cooper and Burnham from the outset.


.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After the Labour victory of 2005 there followed several years of newspaper articles about 'the death of the centre-right' and 'could the Tories ever win an election again?'. Labour are in a tricky spot but let's not go overboard.


"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

Yes, easy. Erk! ;)

 

So if we agree that Corbyn would be a disaster - as would Liz Kendall in my view as she represents the opposite extreme - which of the two remaining candidates are best placed to deliver on the above?

 

I've been torn between Cooper and Burnham from the outset.

Cooper.  No doubt about it.  Burnham just comes across exactly the same as Ed Miliband regardless of what comes from his mouth.  Perception is half the battle.


"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

Yes, easy. Erk! ;)

 

So if we agree that Corbyn would be a disaster - as would Liz Kendall in my view as she represents the opposite extreme - which of the two remaining candidates are best placed to deliver on the above?

 

I've been torn between Cooper and Burnham from the outset.

It's always been a 2 horse race. I'm leaning towards Cooper for a few reasons: Cameron has an obvious problem with women, Osborne (as likely successor) would seem even more smug and charmless than usual up against a generally calm and restrained Cooper, and Burnham just seems a little lightweight the more you watch him. Still could be persuaded though.


"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

True Tories will always vote that way, just as Labour hardcore will always vote that way. But the thing that decides elections is the whole swathe of the population in the middle who are conservative with a small c.

I hear Labour politicians harping on about the "working man" as if we are still in 1975 and the large industrial base still existed. Where the "working man" had little aspiration other than to feed his family and get by week to week.

The "working man" these days is just as likely to go to work in a tie, drive a BMW and live in a nice house on a suburban estate, want his kids to go to university, have a foreign holiday every year etc.

Forget about appealing to core voters, it is these people who win elections. Blair got it, before he got his God complex. I'm not suggesting Labour should go back to the full on Blairite approach but if they don't incorporate aspects of it and understand why it's important then quite frankly they are doomed.


I’m not prejudiced, I hate everybody equally

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

For me there was obvious reasons why Labour didn't win the last election.

1.They didn't get their message over.They didn't push hard enough.

2. People thought they couldn't be trusted on the economy. They never went for the jugular over the way Gideon has handled the economy, and the lie's the Tories told

3. Ed Miliband was an easy target for the Tory media due to being percevied as a back stabber and weak.

The next Labour leader will have to be strong and get the message over and not be frightened to attack the Tories.

I still think the perceived stabbing of his brother will haunt Ed Miliband for the rest of his political career and the Labour party for some time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True Tories will always vote that way, just as Labour hardcore will always vote that way. But the thing that decides elections is the whole swathe of the population in the middle who are conservative with a small c.

I hear Labour politicians harping on about the "working man" as if we are still in 1975 and the large industrial base still existed. Where the "working man" had little aspiration other than to feed his family and get by week to week.

The "working man" these days is just as likely to go to work in a tie, drive a BMW and live in a nice house on a suburban estate, want his kids to go to university, have a foreign holiday every year etc.

Forget about appealing to core voters, it is these people who win elections. Blair got it, before he got his God complex. I'm not suggesting Labour should go back to the full on Blairite approach but if they don't incorporate aspects of it and understand why it's important then quite frankly they are doomed.

Despite the criticism of Blair from many within the Labour Party, he achieved wonderful things in his first Parliament, driving what was really quite a left wing agenda from the minimum wage to restoring benefits that had been cut to heavily investing in state infrastructure.  It was only around 2003 that he went off the deep end, probably by hanging around with all those who were insistent on the Iraq invasion.


"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

For me there was obvious reasons why Labour didn't win the last election.

1.They didn't get their message over.They didn't push hard enough.

2. People thought they couldn't be trusted on the economy. They never went for the jugular over the way Gideon has handled the economy, and the lie's the Tories told

3. Ed Miliband was an easy target for the Tory media due to being percevied as a back stabber and weak.

The next Labour leader will have to be strong and get the message over and not be frightened to attack the Tories.

I still think the perceived stabbing of his brother will haunt Ed Miliband for the rest of his political career and the Labour party for some time.

What neither Labour nor Ed Miliband did was get rid of the economic millstone  hung around its neck by the Tories in the leaderless summer of 2010.  The recession caused the deficit not the other way around. Miliband and all of them should have been saying this. They should have countered Osborne's "they didn't fix the roof etc" sound bite with "no we were too busy fixing the foundations."  Because that's what they did.  On every front: infra structure, schools, education, NHS, child poverty,  the country was in a mess when Labour came to power in 1997 and to a large extent they fixed many of the problems, and they also prevented the recession from becoming a depression, plus of course they left a growing economy for their successors.  But between 2010 and 2015 no one said this.  Especially Miliband.  That's the reason Labour lost. That's the reason why on Question Time in Leeds Town Hall, when asked about the economy he stumbled over this words and then stumbled from the stage to defeat.


“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

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

It really is quite simple John. Strangely, it's basic market capitalism - target the gap in the market, not the bit that's already saturated with a brand that's got massive market recognition. There IS an alternative!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What neither Labour nor Ed Miliband did was get rid of the economic millstone  hung around its neck by the Tories in the leaderless summer of 2010.  The recession caused the deficit not the other way around. Miliband and all of them should have been saying this. They should have countered Osborne's "they didn't fix the roof etc" sound bite with "no we were too busy fixing the foundations."  Because that's what they did.  On every front: infra structure, schools, education, NHS, child poverty,  the country was in a mess when Labour came to power in 1997 and to a large extent they fixed many of the problems, and they also prevented the recession from becoming a depression, plus of course they left a growing economy for their successors.  But between 2010 and 2015 no one said this.  Especially Miliband.  That's the reason Labour lost. That's the reason why on Question Time in Leeds Town Hall, when asked about the economy he stumbled over this words and then stumbled from the stage to defeat.

Like i said then then they didn't get the message over.They didn't push hard enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What neither Labour nor Ed Miliband did was get rid of the economic millstone  hung around its neck by the Tories in the leaderless summer of 2010.  The recession caused the deficit not the other way around. Miliband and all of them should have been saying this. They should have countered Osborne's "they didn't fix the roof etc" sound bite with "no we were too busy fixing the foundations."  Because that's what they did.  On every front: infra structure, schools, education, NHS, child poverty,  the country was in a mess when Labour came to power in 1997 and to a large extent they fixed many of the problems, and they also prevented the recession from becoming a depression, plus of course they left a growing economy for their successors.  But between 2010 and 2015 no one said this.  Especially Miliband.  That's the reason Labour lost. That's the reason why on Question Time in Leeds Town Hall, when asked about the economy he stumbled over this words and then stumbled from the stage to defeat.

On the point about the deficit, it was a bit of a gift by the outgoing Labour party to leave a little note telling everyone there was no money left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of Tories thought they lost in 1997 because John Major wasn't right wing enough! David Cameron's whole raison d'etre as leader was to 'detoxify' the Tory Party, after they'd tried the nutty route to failure under Hague, IDS and Howard. Of course, now Labour has imploded again, they don't have to bother detoxifying anything. Full steam ahead to Thatcherville, no left turns, no stopping.

Cameron has done what he set out to do and the evidence is in the fact that the Tories are now in power with a majority, albeit a small one. 

 

Cameron is a pragmatist which is why he was able to make a coalition government work.  Thatcher was not a pragmatist and would spin in her grave if anyone suggested she could form a coalition.  I'm not sure there are all that many connectors between Cameron and Thatcher.  The only one that springs to mind is the driving policy of smaller government but that is common to Tories per se really, me included.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cameron has done what he set out to do and the evidence is in the fact that the Tories are now in power with a majority, albeit a small one. 

 

Cameron is a pragmatist which is why he was able to make a coalition government work.  Thatcher was not a pragmatist and would spin in her grave if anyone suggested she could form a coalition.  I'm not sure there are all that many connectors between Cameron and Thatcher.  The only one that springs to mind is the driving policy of smaller government but that is common to Tories per se really, me included.

Cameron is a weak man backed into a corner by right wing idealogues.  He no longer has the Lib/Dems as an excuse for not being right wing enough, so he's taking the line of least resistance and giving in to the loonies, on Foxhunting, on FOI, on Human Rights, on the BBC, and no doubt plenty of other issues that will affect those less well off for the worse not better.


“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

True Tories will always vote that way, just as Labour hardcore will always vote that way. But the thing that decides elections is the whole swathe of the population in the middle who are conservative with a small c.

I hear Labour politicians harping on about the "working man" as if we are still in 1975 and the large industrial base still existed. Where the "working man" had little aspiration other than to feed his family and get by week to week.

The "working man" these days is just as likely to go to work in a tie, drive a BMW and live in a nice house on a suburban estate, want his kids to go to university, have a foreign holiday every year etc.

Forget about appealing to core voters, it is these people who win elections. Blair got it, before he got his God complex. I'm not suggesting Labour should go back to the full on Blairite approach but if they don't incorporate aspects of it and understand why it's important then quite frankly they are doomed.

Could'nt put it better

Their only chance is to go to further to the right or they are doomed

Corbyn would be the End

Edited by back to the future

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the point about the deficit, it was a bit of a gift by the outgoing Labour party to leave a little note telling everyone there was no money left.

Sorry?


"You clearly have never met Bob8 then, he's like a veritable Bryan Ferry of RL." - Johnoco 19 Jul 2014

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It really is quite simple John. Strangely, it's basic market capitalism - target the gap in the market, not the bit that's already saturated with a brand that's got massive market recognition. There IS an alternative!

 

So how come if it's that easy that no one has done it?


.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still think the perceived stabbing of his brother will haunt Ed Miliband for the rest of his political career and the Labour party for some time.

 

I'll never quite get my head around that.

 

Was there supposed to be some sort of coronation of the elder brother, a succession instead of an election?

 

People moaned when Gordon Brown replaced Tony Blair as leader without an election because there were no other challengers.

 

Perhaps David should just have been less complacent and fought a better campaign against Ed.


.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What neither Labour nor Ed Miliband did was get rid of the economic millstone  hung around its neck by the Tories in the leaderless summer of 2010. 

 

Correct.

 

And they are compounding that mistake by repeating the process again now with another interminable leadership election that still has almost two more months to run.

 

Two more months of airing internal divisions instead of challenging the government and providing opposition where it is needed.

 

It's as if the Tories invented Labour Party rules, they are so self-defeating at times.


.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cameron is a weak man backed into a corner by right wing idealogues. He no longer has the Lib/Dems as an excuse for not being right wing enough, so he's taking the line of least resistance and giving in to the loonies, on Foxhunting, on FOI, on Human Rights, on the BBC, and no doubt plenty of other issues that will affect those less well off for the worse not better.

I genuinely think Cameron believes in all of those things though as his core beliefs. He truly wants a country that's better for people like him. When he says we're all in it together he really means all the top Tories are in it together to screw us over for their narrow benefit.

"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

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.

Seems like the loonie left calculator is every bit as defective as a Union calculator

 

I think you'll find the Tories got 36.9% of the vote not 24%

Labour 30.4%

UKIP 12.6%

LibDems 7.9%

SNP 4.7%

Greens 3.8%

 

Given UKIP can be considered to be a right wing party then the 'Right' achieved 49.5% of the vote.

Targetting the 50.5% of the voters who didn't want a right wing government wont necessarily win them the next election. They need to be taking seats back off the Tories in marginals and regaining control in Scotland

 

As the SNP have proved you can forget about % of votes, its all about the number of MP 's otherwise how do you explain the SNP having such a large number of MP's with such a small number of votes !


Lets Get Brexit Done !!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like the loonie left calculator is every bit as defective as a Union calculator

 

I think you'll find the Tories got 36.9% of the vote not 24%

Labour 30.4%

UKIP 12.6%

LibDems 7.9%

SNP 4.7%

Greens 3.8%

 

Given UKIP can be considered to be a right wing party then the 'Right' achieved 49.5% of the vote.

Targetting the 50.5% of the voters who didn't want a right wing government wont necessarily win them the next election. They need to be taking seats back off the Tories in marginals and regaining control in Scotland

 

As the SNP have proved you can forget about % of votes, its all about the number of MP 's otherwise how do you explain the SNP having such a large number of MP's with such a small number of votes !

I think he means the percentage of the total electorate.


“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'll never quite get my head around that.

 

Was there supposed to be some sort of coronation of the elder brother, a succession instead of an election?

 

People moaned when Gordon Brown replaced Tony Blair as leader without an election because there were no other challengers.

 

Perhaps David should just have been less complacent and fought a better campaign against Ed.

I did say perceived John, and some people used this as an excuse not to vote Labour.

A majority might regret their decision in a in the not to distance future.

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...