next labour leader

[Jippy]

You can't really make the argument that a huge public works project that predominantly benefits London (and those who commute into London) is distorting figures - it's an example of the disparity. I just found a figure from 2011 which said that London spends about £2700 a head on infrastructure compared to £5 a head in the North East and that



I'm a student so I don't pay council tax, but where my parents live Band A is £1120-ish and Band H is £3350-ish in a pretty run-down area, is London's significantly higher?

As for the tax-take argument, the tax take is London is skewed by companies being set up there and rich people living there, and the reason rich people and companies flock there is because government policy has always encouraged the concentration of wealth and power in London whilst places like Glasgow, Yorkshire, Wales, the North West and the North East did all the grunt work and got very little in return. Think of it as London paying back its debts to the rest of the country (so slowly and in such small amounts that they barely notice the money's missing).

A lot of the funding for the London infrastructure is private. The transport system here is Victorian and creaking to say the least- half the money spent is just keeping it working, not building shiny new things. Cross-rail won't benefit me for what it's worth.
I'm from East Yorkshire and the public transport there was shite, albeit far cheaper.
I don't know the answer, but agree that more needs to be done to rejuvenate the regions. It can be done, eg Siemens coming in with a big plant employing loads in Hull, near where my mum lives, but it is hard. We aren't exactly competitive on the wage stakes, particularly compared to Asia and even the EU given the weakness of the euro.

 

[Jippy]

The kind of appeal to cuntishness that made me leave the labour party 20 years ago.

Mourning the death of blank cheque policies. In all seriousness, and I did mention it before, but I do wonder where the disenfranchised left will end up. Wouldn't be amazingly surprised to see a new party formed in the next few years.

 

[peterstorey]

See Syriza, Podemos et al.

 

[Jippy]

See Syriza, Podemos et al.

The fear is that for every Syriza you get a Golden Dawn.

 

[Ubik]

Labour goes left - it loses. It happens over, and over.

As for the last Labour government doing nothing useful - I'm sure the good ol' Tories would've introduced a minimum wage, increased public service investment, brought in the HRA, tax credits and decreased child and pensioner poverty. It was a far cry from perfect, but it did demonstrably beneficial things that wouldn't have been achieved sat on the ideologically pure opposition benches. You can still bring in leftish ideas once you get into power, but you have to present an overall centrist messages because the voters that you're trying to win are those bang in the centre. And they voted Tory this year.

 

[sun_tzu]

Fair point- 40k household income can't be that much above both being on minimum wage.

Indeed in could be two people working full time with a kid (plus benefits) Or it could be a young single person with very low outgoings so obviously very different lives but categorised the same... That said it was the best info I could find in a very brief scan

 

[jeff_goldblum]

Labour goes left - it loses. It happens over, and over.

As for the last Labour government doing nothing useful - I'm sure the good ol' Tories would've introduced a minimum wage, increased public service investment, brought in the HRA, tax credits and decreased child and pensioner poverty. It was a far cry from perfect, but it did demonstrably beneficial things that wouldn't have been achieved sat on the ideologically pure opposition benches. You can still bring in leftish ideas once you get into power, but you have to present an overall centrist messages because the voters that you're trying to win are those bang in the centre. And they voted Tory this year.

Labour hasn't 'gone left' in over two decades though. The myth of the centre-right consensus is just that, Thatcher was primed to be booted out of office after a single term until the Falklands War happened and she rode into office on a wave of jingoism. The right wing media were more responsible for keeping Thatcher afloat through the 80s than the Labour Party were. At the 1992 election Kinnock had already dragged Labour into the middle ground and they still got pilloried by the Murdoch press and lost heavily. By the time 1997 came round the Tories were so weak that even Murdoch couldn't see the point supporting them any more. People highlight the capture of the centrist vote as the key battleground, but I'd argue that retaining the leftist vote was just as important. As has become apparent since, Labour's shift to the right has compromised their traditional support base and without it they've no chance of challenging the Tories.

I agree that Labour did some good in power - but they always stopped short of doing anything that would significantly change the country for the better. Increased spending on public services was carried through as a campaign promise but they did it without any real plan in mind so much of it was effectively wasted. For example the money they poured into the NHS largely went to create a level of middle-managership and bureaucracy which gave good salaries to middle-class graduates rather than improving on the services provided. And then they began NHS privatisation on top of that.. The minimum wage was a great move but it was too low and the discrepancies between the age groups led to a lot of businesses employing kids still in school over unemployed adults because it saved them 1/3 of their wage bill. They had the oppurtunity to introduce electoral reform but went back on it when the current system started favouring them, they also u-turned on plans to curb the media influence of the liked of Murdoch, which eventually came back to bite them. And then like I say, whilst there was nominal economic prosperity, little of it trickled down to the poorest areas and the poorest people. The party's traditional support expected better, and it's paid the price for not delivering it at this election, both in the loss of Scotland, and the loss of votes to UKIP in the marginals.

 

[bishblaize]

Labour hasn't 'gone left' in over two decades though. The myth of the centre-right consensus is just that, Thatcher was primed to be booted out of office after a single term until the Falklands War happened and she rode into office on a wave of jingoism. The right wing media were more responsible for keeping Thatcher afloat through the 80s than the Labour Party were. At the 1992 election Kinnock had already dragged Labour into the middle ground and they still got pilloried by the Murdoch press and lost heavily. By the time 1997 came round the Tories were so weak that even Murdoch couldn't see the point supporting them any more. People highlight the capture of the centrist vote as the key battleground, but I'd argue that retaining the leftist vote was just as important. As has become apparent since, Labour's shift to the right has compromised their traditional support base and without it they've no chance of challenging the Tories.

Wow, that is astonishing revision of what happened to Labour in the 1980s. Labour factionalised, imploded and became utterly unelectable during that period. I had hoped the massive civil war that we endured in the 80s would be a lesson the party would never forget.

 

[jeff_goldblum]

Wow, that is astonishing revision of what happened to Labour in the 1980s. Labour factionalised, imploded and became utterly unelectable during that period. I had hoped the massive civil war that we endured in the 80s would be a lesson the party would never forget.

I'd say its not controversial to say that Thatcher's victory in 1984 was down to the Falklands War and the papers bigging her up in the aftermath - like I said, before the war all indications were that she'd lose the election but afterwards she was hailed as a hero. Similarly, I doubt people would have ever put up with the government's conduct during the miner's strike if it weren't for the meda, both broadcast and print, demonising the miners and failing to highlight what the police were up to.

I'm not denying that Labour imploded, but I see that as a symptom of Thatcherism and the media agenda rather than something in and of itself. The party wasn't unelectable because the public didn't agree with their policies, it was unelectable because the media was determined not to let it happen, both by tearing down Labour's credibility and by sugar-coating Thatcher's Britain. The tension caused by that realisation was the primary cause for the split - you had a faction of the party who were resolved to try and get the media back on side and a faction that didn't want to compromise its beliefs.

 

[bishblaize]

I'd say its not controversial to say that Thatcher's victory in 1984 was down to the Falklands War and the papers bigging her up in the aftermath - like I said, before the war all indications were that she'd lose the election but afterwards she was hailed as a hero. Similarly, I doubt people would have ever put up with the government's conduct during the miner's strike if it weren't for the meda, both broadcast and print, demonising the miners and failing to highlight what the police were up to.

I'm not denying that Labour imploded, but I see that as a symptom of Thatcherism and the media agenda rather than something in and of itself. The party wasn't unelectable because the public didn't agree with their policies, it was unelectable because the media was determined not to let it happen, both by tearing down Labour's credibility and by sugar-coating Thatcher's Britain. The tension caused by that realisation was the primary cause for the split - you had a faction of the party who were resolved to try and get the media back on side and a faction that didn't want to compromise its beliefs.

That anyone can look back on the war with Militant and claim it was little more than media manipulation - just incredible.

 

[sun_tzu]

I don't think John Smith gets enough credit for moving the party forward - certainly without him I don't think Blair would have emerged as a leader - more likely Prescott or somebody similar.

We will never know if Smith would have gone on to be PM and if so what his legacy may have been for the country - but certainly his legacy for the Labour party (ending the block votes) was positive

 

[jeff_goldblum]

That anyone can look back on the war with Militant and claim it was little more than media manipulation - just incredible.

That's not what I'm saying at all. I don't think the media manipulated the party in the slightest, my point is that the media agenda and Labour's resulting electoral failures exacerbated cracks in the party and led to factionalism and conflict. Jack Straw said as much in 83 when he said that he felt that if Labour wanted to be electable they'd have to lessen Militant's influence within the party. If Labour had won in 1983 as they were set to, there'd have been no big panic about the direction of the party, no move to the centre, no huge clash of interests with Militant and no implosion. That's not to say it wouldn't have come to a head eventually anyway though. In the same way that the Tories collapsed in the 90s, Labour probably would have fallen to infighting if a polarising or unconvincing leader was elected and they'd been in power for a while.

 

[Ubik]

Really struggle to see how the Falklands led to the SDP breakaway.

When leftish Labour loses - "it was the media's fault". When centrist Labour wins - "well yeah, anyone could've won that election".

 

[bishblaize]

That's not what I'm saying at all. I don't think the media manipulated the party in the slightest, my point is that the media agenda and Labour's resulting electoral failures exacerbated cracks in the party and led to factionalism and conflict. Jack Straw said as much in 83 when he said that he felt that if Labour wanted to be electable they'd have to lessen Militant's influence within the party. If Labour had won in 1983 as they were set to, there'd have been no big panic about the direction of the party, no move to the centre, no huge clash of interests with Militant and no implosion. That's not to say it wouldn't have come to a head eventually anyway though. In the same way that the Tories collapsed in the 90s, Labour probably would have fallen to infighting if a polarising or unconvincing leader was elected and they'd been in power for a while.

Labour were at war with Militant long before the election. They were kicking them out before we even reached 83 so I think the idea that winning it would have solved that particular problem is pretty fanciful.

The claim that it was mere jingoism that got Thatcher back in misses a key point. As the Falklands kicked off, Labour were setting a resolution in favour of unilateral disarmament. That was already an unpopular point of view, but as the war started it looked ludicrously out of touch. Defense became the topic of the day, and while Thatcher showed with her actions during the war that she was not up for being shoved around, the Labour Party were left with a policy that most people viewed as weak and out of touch. So yes, the Tories benefitted, but Labour's naval gazing meant they scored a massive own goal.

The reality is that while the Tories were indeed somewhat lucky to have the Falklands work out in their favour, Labour lost about 3 million voters from 1979 to 1983. That was way more than can be accounted for by just the war.

I don't think John Smith gets enough credit for moving the party forward - certainly without him I don't think Blair would have emerged as a leader - more likely Prescott or somebody similar.

We will never know if Smith would have gone on to be PM and if so what his legacy may have been for the country - but certainly his legacy for the Labour party (ending the block votes) was positive

Hard to judge the legacy of John Smith. On the one hand he was was certainly a healing figure for the party coming out of its civil war. His background meant that he carried weight with most of the left, but he was also a moderniser who was trying to make the party electable again.

On the other hand there was much talk of Brown for Chancellor even in the early 90s (Smith and Brown were close) - would a 1997 Labour party with a pair of Scotsman at the helm have done as well in middle England as Tony Blair? My guess would be not.

 

[The Mitcher]

Labour were at war with Militant long before the election. They were kicking them out before we even reached 83 so I think the idea that winning it would have solved that particular problem is pretty fanciful.

The claim that it was mere jingoism that got Thatcher back in misses a key point. As the Falklands kicked off, Labour were setting a resolution in favour of unilateral disarmament. That was already an unpopular point of view, but as the war started it looked ludicrously out of touch. Defense became the topic of the day, and while Thatcher showed with her actions during the war that she was not up for being shoved around, the Labour Party were left with a policy that most people viewed as weak and out of touch. So yes, the Tories benefitted, but Labour's naval gazing meant they scored a massive own goal.

The reality is that while the Tories were indeed somewhat lucky to have the Falklands work out in their favour, Labour lost about 3 million voters from 1979 to 1983. That was way more than can be accounted for by just the war.



Hard to judge the legacy of John Smith. On the one hand he was was certainly a healing figure for the party coming out of its civil war. His background meant that he carried weight with most of the left, but he was also a moderniser who was trying to make the party electable again.

On the other hand there was much talk of Brown for Chancellor even in the early 90s (Smith and Brown were close) - would a 1997 Labour party with a pair of Scotsman at the helm have done as well in middle England as Tony Blair? My guess would be not.

Blair is scottish anyway, right?

 

[bishblaize]

Blair is scottish anyway, right?

He was born in Scotland but left aged two. Spent most of his childhood in Durham. Did go to a boarding school in Scotland though iirc.

 

[sun_tzu]

Blair is scottish anyway, right?

Unless I can picture them in a skirt wielding a claymore and shouting freedom (or doing a good rab c nesbit impression) I don't consider them Scottish
Smith, Scottish. .. aye
Brown, Scottish ... aye
Blair, Scottish . . I can't see it

 

[Ubik]

Probably the neatest summing up of the situation:

 

[jeff_goldblum]

So finally a left-wing candidate has gotten into the running. Regardless of the current debate regarding how well a left-wing Labour would fare in 2020, how do yous guys reckon Corbyn will do in the leadership stakes? I suspect he'll have a fair bit of backing, especially since the the centre-ground is looking pretty full at the moment and the candidates there will be competing for the same votes. Maybe one or two of them will drop out?

 

[Ubik]

Depends if a few (a lot) of the excess Burnham backers decide/are allowed to switch over, as most of the left seem to have already committed to him.

 

[jeff_goldblum]

Depends if a few (a lot) of the excess Burnham backers decide/are allowed to switch over, as most of the left seem to have already committed to him.

Yeah I assume the nominations aren't set in stone, at least not so soon. Many on the left will have backed him prior to his recent statements where he's angled towards the centre-ground when they thought he was the best candidate they were going to get.

 

[Ubik]

Yeah I assume the nominations aren't set in stone, at least not so soon. Many on the left will have backed him prior to his recent statements where he's angled towards the centre-ground when they thought he was the best candidate they were going to get.

Yep, though could also help him by looking more moderate in comparison and making Kendall look like the outlier, and he can probably still count on the second preferences from leftier voters.

 

[jeff_goldblum]

From what I gather, the official nomination process runs between the 9th and 15th of this month, so everything that's happened so far isn't set in stone.

 

[Kaos]

Huge fan of Corbyn, delighted to hear he's running.

Don't think he'll be elected unfortunately.

 

[Ubik]

From what I gather, the official nomination process runs between the 9th and 15th of this month, so everything that's happened so far isn't set in stone.

Yeah, but considering Burnham is still the favourite, there won't be that many MPs who want to piss him off by ditching him of their own accord.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

Interesting, an actual left-wing candidate. I'd be surprised if he got anywhere, surely Labour will now go running to the centre.

 

[Drifter]

Good to see someone from the left putting themselves forward . Doubt he'll get the 35 MP signatures required though.

 

[Jippy]

Burnham very deferential to Prince Charles.

Burnham chose to make the traditional sign-off to the heir to throne in his own handwriting: “I have the honour to remain, Sir, your Royal Highness’s most humble and obedient servant.”

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...prince-charles-lobbied-homeopathy-funding-nhs

 

[Ubik]

I was going to wait for longer before fully deciding on who to vote for, but not much point anymore as there isn't much more to find out about them so Kendall it is for leader. Deputy is far more open though. Jowell for mayor candidate.

 

[711]

Burnham very deferential to Prince Charles.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...prince-charles-lobbied-homeopathy-funding-nhs

Bugger-all to do with being deferential, it's simply upholding tradition. Like the jocks leaning not to clap in the commons. History, innit.

 

[Jippy]

Bugger-all to do with being deferential, it's simply upholding tradition. Like the jocks leaning not to clap in the commons. History, innit.

The coverage of it reflected the papers' colours though. The Tel mocked him for being deferential, while the Guardian was saying he was 'adhering to tradition' or whatever. Yvette Cooper and the like were more casual in their response. Admit it is cheap point scoring though.

 

[jeff_goldblum]

Are the nomination votes public by nature or is it just a case of MPs coming out and stating who they supported?

 

[Ubik]

Are the nomination votes public by nature or is it just a case of MPs coming out and stating who they supported?

They get listed on the Labour website after they've been officially submitted.

 

[jeff_goldblum]

They get listed on the Labour website after they've been officially submitted.

Cheers!

 

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

Have any of you seen yesterday's coverage of the GMB conference?

Burnham and Cooper were jeered for their repeated refusal to state their position on the benefits cap (the other three all gave either a yes or a no). These are ministers of some years standing, yet they failed to provide a cogent answer to a fiarly simple question.

Radio 4 also aired a panel discussion involving Labour activists from Wigan, during which the local constituency chairman stated that he remained ignorant about most of the nominees (and later explained that he'd use Question Time performances to reach a decision). How detached must local party branches have become, for such a senior figure to admit that he hasn't the foggiest idea what's going on?

 

[Ubik]

Have any of you seen yesterday's coverage of the GMB conference?

Burnham and Cooper were jeered for their repeated refusal to state their position on the benefits cap (the other three all gave either a yes or a no). These are ministers of some years standing, yet they failed to provide a cogent answer to a fiarly simple question.

Radio 4 also aired a panel discussion involving Labour activists from Wigan, during which the local constituency chairman stated that he remained ignorant about most of the nominees (and later explained that he'd use Question Time performances to reach a decision). How detached must local party branches have become, for such a senior figure to admit that he hasn't the foggiest idea what's going on?

This is why neither fill me with great hope, they'll fall into the same Osborne traps as Ed, appear indecisive on major issues and essentially be more of the same without looking as weird whilst saying aspiration a lot. Burnham said the last manifesto was the best he ever stood on ffs, and he's calling himself the change candidate!

 

[Smores]

This is why neither fill me with great hope, they'll fall into the same Osborne traps as Ed, appear indecisive on major issues and essentially be more of the same without looking as weird whilst saying aspiration a lot. Burnham said the last manifesto was the best he ever stood on ffs, and he's calling himself the change candidate!

Not only that but when it comes down to it they'll fail to rectify the parties tarnished public image of economic incompetence.

Not that they can't challenge the notion, that's easy, they just won't risk it.

We'll find out shortly as Osborne is already laying down the bear traps with the debate on perpetual surpluses painting the tories as the only party to be trusted to do so. The facts of course says otherwise but who cares when your opponents are too weak to challenge you on it.

 

[Ubik]

Not only that but when it comes down to it they'll fail to rectify the parties tarnished public image of economic incompetence.

Not that they can't challenge the notion, that's easy, they just won't risk it.

We'll find out shortly as Osborne is already laying down the bear traps with the debate on perpetual surpluses painting the tories as the only party to be trusted to do so. The facts of course says otherwise but who cares when your opponents are too weak to challenge you on it.

Yeah, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury when the crisis started and Mrs Ed Balls (who was Chief Sec immediately after) are both bad starting positions when your party's weakest point is the economy. Looking more and more like the next leader is going to play the Kinnock role.

 

[Nick 0208 Ldn]

I'm just reading that Mary Creagh actually dropped out of the running over the weekend, due to a failure to garner the necessary support. Corbyn is also struggling to reach the 35 MPs threshold apparently, or so says the Telegraph (i expect that he'll scratch together enough in the end).

I've been listening to the Guardian's Politics Weekly for its coverage of the leadership race, yet they've been somewhat despairing of events since the get-go.

A coronation or narrow debate won't serve Labour well in the long run; when i think back to the discourse surrounding Cameron's election leader, even those who were ultimately unsuccessful brought some value (David Davis with regard to civil liberties for instance).

 

[Ubik]

One camp's comparing another to the taliban today. Labour deserve to lose in 2020 at this rate.