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's an indictment on the Labour Party that the most credible campaign is being mounted by Jeremy Corbyn.

 

A bloke who has never worked for an organisation that has ever had to earn its own finances and has been married three times.

 

The Labour Party will not get the leader it needs, it will get the leader that it currently deserves

 

Corbyn reportedly divorced one of his wives because she wanted to send their son to a grammar school.

 

I'm afraid that sounds seriously weird to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It't about time Labour showed some guts and started fighting back against the SNP, particularly when it makes ridiculous slurs like that.

 

This article sets out the template for the Labour Party to begin its response in Scotland.

Let's set the context before I start here, I want a strong Labour party and Labour needs its Scottish seats back to effectively challenge the Tories.  I want Labour to effectively challenge and overturn the SNP in Scotland.  But...

 

I read that article carefully hoping for something new.  What I found out instead is that the article is just amateurish beyond belief.  I'd expect a high-school debating class to rip it apart then start looking for the real challenge.

 

I'll copy one paragraph from it and apply basic criticism to it to show what I mean:

 

How does Scotland use the relative flexibility afforded by its fiscal settlement? In 2013/14 it spent about 6.5 per cent more on health per person than the UK average, down from 16.5 per cent in 1998/1999. While allowing the extra amount it spends on health—and on education—to fall, the Scottish government has dramatically increased spending in other areas. For example, Scotland spends more than twice as much per person on “enterprise and economic development” and agriculture than the UK average, three-quarters more per person on transport and approximately one-half more on “recreation, culture and religion.”

 

Right:

Sentence 1 and summary:  "How does Scotland use the relative flexibility afforded by its fiscal settlement?" 

Is this meant to be a negative critique of what the SNP does, if so then the context of the rest of the paragraph doesn't match.  The SNP using the fiscal settlement's flexibility to meet local needs is surely the entire point of a devolved regional state such as the Scottish Parliament and government.

 

Sentence 2: "In 2013/14 it spent about 6.5 per cent more on health per person than the UK average, down from 16.5 per cent in 1998/1999." 

So, Scotland still spends 6.5% more on healthcare than everywhere else in the UK?  Is that a bad thing?  Would Labour commit to taking it back to 16.5%, if not, why not and why bring it up?  Not even a couple of months ago, Labour specifically promised to invest less in the NHS than every other party, Tories included.  Those in glass houses...

 

Sentence 3: "While allowing the extra amount it spends on health—and on education—to fall, the Scottish government has dramatically increased spending in other areas.” 

Compare and contrast with the funding cuts in the NHS everywhere else of 8-10% over the last 5 years, that 6.5% more means that the Scottish population get the money that the Tories have promised extra already without having to make the cuts that the NHS in England and Wales have had to commit to to receive that money.  Again, the grant that Scotland receives has been cut severely in the last five years to match overall budget cuts, surely it makes sense to go for such over-spends first when cutting to match income?  And then, the extra investment in the NHS promised by the Tories means the Scots can spend even more on healthcare.

 

Sentence 4: "For example, Scotland spends more than twice as much per person on “enterprise and economic development” and agriculture than the UK average, three-quarters more per person on transport and approximately one-half more on “recreation, culture and religion.”" 

Enterprise and economic development for Scotland essentially means investing in companies that settle in economically deprived areas, encouraging employment with the resulting contribution to tax income from people that previously wouldn't have had work.  This money has gone to counter the loss of the heavy industry in Scotland from coal to dockyards.  Many London based companies are actively seeking to move new work to Scotland because of the favourable SNP business-friendly approaches, the cost to the taxpayer is overwhelmingly recovered through the increased employment taxes plus benefit reduction caused by people getting work.  Surely investing in new business and reducing unemployment is a good thing, isn't it?  I wish we had a government that did that in the north and midlands of England and most of Wales. 

Then there's the recreation, culture and religion part, the SNP is rightly investing in one of Scotland's great assets, it's landscape and scenery, the government there invests in tourism and recovers the money for the taxpayer through increased income from tourists and increased employment taxes from extra jobs.  It's seriously disingenuous lumping religion into tourism, probably hoping to make a sensationalist point. 

On the transport side, have you been to Scotland lately?  It's a bit hilly there meaning transport investment is more expensive, also they have opened two new train lines recently bringing much needed new public transport to very rural communities.  Again, are people really complaining about extra public transport to previously cut-off areas?  For example, the new line from Edinburgh to the Borders area around Galashiels has opened up the prospect of those people getting to work in Edinburgh very easily by train compared to previously having to drive.  Yes, the Edinburgh tram thing is a stupidly expensive white elephant project but it was a Labour concept from Edinburgh Council, again those in glass houses...

 

See what I mean?

 

Then the article goes on to grumble that the NHS hasn't reorganised in a couple of decades in Scotland.  That's fine with me, no wasted money there then compared with the expensive change fatigue in the NHS in England and Wales.  Again, I wish that attitude had prevailed in England and Wales.  They even then criticise the SNP for not going with England's education reforms around academies, I'll leave that point to laugh at itself.

 

It really is that poor.  It makes a persistent habit of picking on the things the SNP and Holyrood does fairly well compared to Westminster and tries to rubbish them when, in fact, all it does is make them look even better on comparison.  Is the author to Labour what Donald Trump is to the US Republican party, a secret agent set out to destroy the last bits of their credibility?

 

If I were devising a tactic to get Scotland back then I'd be looking to work with the SNP successes by acknowledging the good stuff that the SNP has done up there and then promising to make it even better on a macro scale across the UK.  Play to the unionist majority and wavering independence voters by showing the successes of the UK and what happens when you take regionally great things that the SNP have done and apply them across the UK where appropriate.  The SNP can't do UK-macro so take their good stuff blatantly and say "thank you, we'll take it from here across the UK now, off you go back to being a single-policy party again".  Show how the stuff that's getting work to former industrially dominated areas can be rolled out across the same economic structures in the north of England and Wales.  Show how leaving the NHS alone from reorganisation actually makes things better across the UK.  Make the case as a national party bringing national experience to a regional area.


"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

Yougov/Times survey asked for reasons for labour losing, top 3 answers -

 

1 - Ed Miliband was not good enough as party leader

2 - Labour lost touch with its working class roots

3 - Labour did not provide a clear alternative to the austerity policies of the coalition.

 

In last place -

 

Labours policies were too left wing.


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

One thing that I find puzzling about Corbyn is how he can be in favour of raising the wages of the lowest paid and in favour of mass immigration at the same time. One is the driving factor in causing the other. Mass immigration affects the poorest, unskilled workforce more than any other sector of society as it creates a bigger pool of labour chasing the available jobs, which in turn leads to wage depression.


I’m not prejudiced, I hate everybody equally

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Labour needs to stay Centre-Left but with a credible leader.  Jeremy is not that person.

 

A 'Tony Blair' (or David Miliband....) using the same manifesto, plan and policies, would of probably won/drawn the election.

 

The rewriting of the election is quite amazing, the brilliant tory plan was so good that they thought they had lost until 10pm on that Thursday.


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

Maybe if your Trotsky mate Trojan had'nt kept repeating baloney and libellous statements,the original thread about welfare cuts would not of been locked by John.

Anyway i'll butt out of this thread now while you socialists debate who's the next Captain of the Titanic

 

 

The last 2 elections should give you a clue,even a mild leftish oppositon was rejected

Britain( well lets forget the scots their on their own as far as English people are concerned)will not go socialist or in Corbyns case semi communist

Blair even had to change the name to "New Labour"and drop the socialist logo to get elected

 

I know this is a thread about politics, but don't make promises you can't keep. ;)


.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm out of here: me being in a discussion about a Labour Party leader is like being an unwelcome stranger at a wake.

 

 

Your flawed analysis, interpretation and conclusion is most definitely and consistently wrong.  

 

And as for this nonsense, "at heart the Tory party is the party of the privileged few. Always has been and always will be"  you've been listening to Arthur again.

 

Anyway, I shall now leave you to your delusion as you debate how many angels you can get on the tip of an irrelevant needle.

 

He'll be back. ;)


.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This does seem a rather low-wattage power struggle. Possibly because nobody expects to achieve a Labour win next time unless the Conservatives really do turn out to be giant humanoid lizards (and even then...).

 

Still, compared to the LibDem leadership contest, it's like the Rumble in the Jungle.


"Men will be proud to say 'I am a European'. We hope to see a day when men of every country will think as much of being a European as of being from their native land." (Winston Churchill)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

We're also only a few elections away from Labour securing back-to-back majorities on very left-wing policies in 1997 and 2001.

Left Wing surely you are joking Blair and his cronies went so far to the right that Murdoch even endorsed them.

Again it was the "New Labour" tag instead of the Socialist Party of Britain aided by the Tory party in fighting over Europe and after 18 years even i was hoping for a change in direction.

Corbyn maybe attracting new or young voters (you know the type) buy now pay later brigade or the dont touch my benefits deadlegs,thankfully the older generation (me included) realize the country needs to be financially more prudent.

The country needs to tighten its belt not spend more

My grandchildren should not be paying for stupidity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're wrong. As usual:

 

19781229539_e9d8a29c79_o.jpg

 

Only 6.5% more of the population prefer the tories over Labour. At the last election Labour had a 0.7% greater increase in the vote share over the Tories. 

 

This is a fact that bears constant repetition. The situation ain't great for Labour, but the triumphalism of the right is based on fairly weak foundations too. If 30.4% is a calamity, then 36.9% isn't a really ringing endorsement of anything either. Which makes the Labour Party's current descent into tribalism and infighting all the more galling.


.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if you had'nt had to shut the benefits thread down ;)

 

Excuses excuses.


.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Twas ever thus. It's always been the right of the party that has created disharmony and splits.

 

They've usually been the ones who have won elections, to be fair.


.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Left Wing surely you are joking Blair and his cronies went so far to the right that Murdoch even endorsed them.

Again it was the "New Labour" tag instead of the Socialist Party of Britain aided by the Tory party in fighting over Europe and after 18 years even i was hoping for a change in direction.

Corbyn maybe attracting new or young voters (you know the type) buy now pay later brigade or the dont touch my benefits deadlegs,thankfully the older generation (me included) realize the country needs to be financially more prudent.

The country needs to tighten its belt not spend more

My grandchildren should not be paying for stupidity

So, what do you call minimum wage, massive investment in the public sector, increasing of benefits, increasing of welfare and so on.  Not exactly Thatcherite policies there...


"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

In the recent YouGov poll of Labour Party members only 27 per cent of party members believed it was important that the leader “understood what it takes to win”.

 

It would be interesting to know how the members of other parties would respond to that question.

 

YouGov also said there would be a hung parliament a few weeks ago and got it spectacularly wrong. And didn't we all recently hoot with derision at YouGov's profiling of the population that seems to make no sense to anyone at all? Their methodology clearly leaves a lot to be desired, but here we all are, suckered into allowing discredited polling organisations to set the agenda yet again. This poll may be based on absolutely nothing but straws in the wind given that there is no accurate means of polling members of a specific political party (the chief of YouGov has admitted as much) yet in publishing it, they have given the Corbyn bandwagon an almighty shove in the right direction in allowing his supporters to believe he can win. Polling of this nature is irresponsible in my view. It doesn't sample the mood, it seeks to influence it.


.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It't about time Labour showed some guts and started fighting back against the SNP, particularly when it makes ridiculous slurs like that.

With a significant number of MPs in a left wing party in Northern Ireland not taking their seats at Westminster and the Unionist apologists for the Tories. There is more chance of Labour taking seats in Northern Ireland than there is Scotland.

 

This article sets out the template for the Labour Party to begin its response in Scotland.

The comment on the article was a fair response.

GORDAN_LOGAN

June 23, 2015 at 17:27

This article is an omnibus collection of almost all the recorded criticisms of the SNP in government, including some which are not partisan in nature (the Curriculum for Excellence school reforms were begun by the previous administration and are not especially SNP-ish) and some which are probably outwith the realm of government to affect (Scottish institutions are meek and seek consensus). Reorganisation of the police, adjustments of property taxes to reflect the Scottish housing market, identifying a named person who is responsible for reporting signs of child abuse or neglect - these are hardly "failing Scotland". Where Scotland does have real social failure is in the difference in social outcomes that appears to be decided at birth. This is nothing new, and the suggestion that Scotland likes to kid on it is all about equality while ignoring this is not a new criticism either. It goes back half a century or more. How to address this should be Scotland's #1 political priority, and education is surely a part, although poverty and lack of hope have to be addressed too. Suggesting that Michael Gove might provide the answer....

Edited by CodeAgnostic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing that I find puzzling about Corbyn is how he can be in favour of raising the wages of the lowest paid and in favour of mass immigration at the same time. One is the driving factor in causing the other. Mass immigration affects the poorest, unskilled workforce more than any other sector of society as it creates a bigger pool of labour chasing the available jobs, which in turn leads to wage depression.

Yeah never got how he thinks we can magic up a £10 per hour job not just for everyone in this country but also every immigrant who chooses to come here, regardless of if they're even educated or not. Realistically a guaranteed £10 per hour job would be a huge magnet for people to migrate here (understandably), so he'd be looking at tens of millions of new jobs over five years potentially.

 

Ed Miliband and Andy Burnham both get that you need to restrict unskilled immigration for protectionist reasons if you want to preserve wages incidentally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like Burnhams going left in desperation

 

Still here...?


.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They've usually been the ones who have won elections, to be fair.

They didn't win the one in 1945. The most left wing manifesto in Labour's history. Landslide victory. Corbyn will do the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but ...

I don't think it is simple inequality that counts here because most of those on the wrong side of the inequality divide are still (in global terms, at least) quite well off. It will take much more inequality before voting numbers change enough to boot the Tories out.

The inequality divide as a measure is defined locally not globally. The tipping point is closer than most would realise. It could be argued that the youth riots were an expression of that and UKIP represent what appears to be the perception of some that inequality is linked to nationalism. As Labour seek new depths in standards of public life with their own version of Blott on the Landscape the only thing to be done is to wait until the Tories bring us closer to the inequality tipping point until such times as even Corbyn is in with a shout at the election. Edited by CodeAgnostic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They didn't win the one in 1945. The most left wing manifesto in Labour's history. Landslide victory. Corbyn will do the same.

What worked in 45 probably wouldn't now as society has moved on a touch. Are you suggesting Corbyn could win a landslide election ?

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

They didn't win the one in 1945. The most left wing manifesto in Labour's history. Landslide victory. Corbyn will do the same.

The difference between now and then is that Atlee, Bevin, Morrison and Cripps had all been running the country in the wartime coalition.  So they had some credibility with the electorate.  That's Corbyn's problem.  Plus of course the beasting he'll get from the Mail, Sun etc.  A large number of those voting in 1945 were still abroad in the services and therefore immune from the media.


“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...