next labour leader

[jeff_goldblum]

If Corbyn wins and the right-wing of the party throw their toys out of the pram and attempts to undermine him it'll be them who's to blame for Labour losing the next election, not Corbyn or his supporters. Corbyn's done more to promote a national debate on economic strategic during this leadership election than the Labour hierarchy did during the whole of the last parliament and if he wins the election the party should get behind him. I don't get the Labour supporters who are happy to sit and write him off as unelectable rather than debating him on policy. What end does it serve? If you want a Labour government in 2020 you don't continually go around telling the floating voters who decide elections that the front-runner for the leadership is unelectable. Convincing people there's no point is voting Labour is a sure-fire way to lose. If you disagree with his policies by all means have a debate, but dismissing him as unelectable 5 years before the next election is both arrogant and self-defeating.

Also, the idea that Corbyn is basically the return of Militant is daft. Corbyn's positions are loyal to Labour values but he's not just dusting off the same notes he used when he got elected in 1983. He's floating a lot of ideas that are very new, at least in this country.

 

[Kaos]

If Corbyn wins and the right-wing of the party throw their toys out of the pram and attempts to undermine him it'll be them who's to blame for Labour losing the next election, not Corbyn or his supporters. Corbyn's done more to promote a national debate on economic strategic during this leadership election than the Labour hierarchy did during the whole of the last parliament and if he wins the election the party should get behind him. I don't get the Labour supporters who are happy to sit and write him off as unelectable rather than debating him on policy. What end does it serve? If you want a Labour government in 2020 you don't continually go around telling the floating voters who decide elections that the front-runner for the leadership is unelectable. Convincing people there's no point is voting Labour is a sure-fire way to lose. If you disagree with his policies by all means have a debate, but dismissing him as unelectable 5 years before the next election is both arrogant and self-defeating.

Also, the idea that Corbyn is basically the return of Militant is daft. Corbyn's positions are loyal to Labour values but he's not just dusting off the same notes he used when he got elected in 1983. He's floating a lot of ideas that are very new, at least in this country.

Excellent post.

Tony Blair today claimed it would be madness to vote for Corbyn, that alone has convinced me that he's the one to lead the party.

 

[IrishLegend]

YouGov poll on voter preference for Labour leadership

Corbyn 43%
Burnham 26%
Cooper 20%
Kendall 11%

The labour party are completely fecking nuts. They lost to the Conservatives (who were incredibly dull and unappealing) by a majority for (in part) being too left wing. So what are they doing? Go even further to the left driving away all the center swing votes.

 

[bishblaize]

If Corbyn wins and the right-wing of the party throw their toys out of the pram and attempts to undermine him it'll be them who's to blame for Labour losing the next election, not Corbyn or his supporters.

That would only be true if Corbyn would have won with their support.

I don't get the Labour supporters who are happy to sit and write him off as unelectable rather than debating him on policy. What end does it serve? If you want a Labour government in 2020 you don't continually go around telling the floating voters who decide elections that the front-runner for the leadership is unelectable. Convincing people there's no point is voting Labour is a sure-fire way to lose. If you disagree with his policies by all means have a debate, but dismissing him as unelectable 5 years before the next election is both arrogant and self-defeating.

This is not a case of Labour telling the voters that Corbyn is unelectable. Its listening to the voters telling us that Corbyn is not what they want. Listen to the far left parts of the party discuss the leadership campaign and its entirely about which leader will satisfy their needs and their interests. They're not starting from the position of asking what the country wants.

The electorate has been clear on what they want and don't want. All the analysis we’ve had so far has been the same. Going back to them with a new leader who gives them even less of what they want and even more of what they don't want is going to have a very predictable outcome.

There’s a certain give and take when it comes to setting the direction of a party. You have to bring other people round to your way of thinking, but at the same time you need to represent them and work for them in line with how they want the country run. Invariably you have to meet them more than halfway to get them on board and get them to listen to you, and then, when there’s trust there, you get the opportunity to take them in the direction you want to go.

Amongst the candidates, Corbyn represents the position that is furthest away from what the general population is looking for, and he represents the part of the party least interested in meeting people half way. The far left are busy saying that Kendall, and even Burnham ffs, may as well be Tories because they're not left enough. Which is basically saying that if you're centre left or centre, you should go and vote Tory. Which means that even if the entire country could be moved as far left as he is, which I doubt very much anyway, he's approaching it in the way least likely to be successful.

If he were some truly breakthrough visionary figure, then perhaps he could bring people around en masse by the sheer will of his personality & vision. But I doubt even his most ardent supporters could claim that. Just because Corbyn is likeable & honest doesn’t mean people want him in Number 10.

Its worth pointing out too that no-one within the party is objecting to Corbyn because of who he is. No-one’s complaining about his age, his sex, or his jaunty hats. They’re looking at his ideas, looking at the electorate, and seeing such a vast disconnect between the two that there's a genuine fear of what would happen if he were put in charge.

 

[Damien]

The labour party are completely fecking nuts. They lost to the Conservatives (who were incredibly dull and unappealing) by a majority for (in part) being too left wing. So what are they doing? Go even further to the left driving away all the center swing votes.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...-Corbyn-win-and-destroy-the-Labour-Party.html

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

I would love to see Corbyn win this -- but can't actually see it happening, despite the polls.

 

[Smores]

The labour party are completely fecking nuts. They lost to the Conservatives (who were incredibly dull and unappealing) by a majority for (in part) being too left wing. So what are they doing? Go even further to the left driving away all the center swing votes.

I know you've said in part but do you really think one of the main reasons behind them losing was their policies being too left leaning?

I don't think that's the case at all. The Lib dems voters didn't go tory because they thought Labour were too far left and neither did the Scottish with the SNP.

Saying the Tories got in so the population has moved right is rather simplistic and ignores the effect of the SNP, Ed Millibands lack of message or personality, and of course the narrative of Labours economic incompetence.

 

[IrishLegend]

I know you've said in part but do you really think one of the main reasons behind them losing was their policies being too left leaning?

I don't think that's the case at all. The Lib dems voters didn't go tory because they thought Labour were too far left and neither did the Scottish with the SNP.

Saying the Tories got in so the population has moved right is rather simplistic and ignores the effect of the SNP, Ed Miliband's lack of message or personality, and of course the narrative of Labours economic incompetence.

Yes I do. I think most people are moderate sensible people who are not massively left or right leaning. I think the loudest people are vehemently left (especially the far left who think you kill puppies if you have a moderately right leaning view on anything) or right (who bang on far too much about immigration). Where I live was Labour in 97 till 05, most are moderates so when the labour party was more center leaning we went with them, they moved to the left and people voted conservatives.

A lot of people abandoned the lib dems and voted conservative because they DIDN'T want the SNP running the country with labour. It's pretty obvious why. Also the fact they lost a lot of the young / student vote due to their tuition fee's broken promise didn't help.

 

[Wolverine]

Genuine question, if Corbyn does win, could we envisage those on the centre-left splintering off and forming their own party? A "new" labour if you will. Can or would they simply negate the voter's choice?

Incidentally the yougov poll had a sample size of 1054 people. This one, with a poll of 294 people, suggests Yvette Cooper might edge it
http://leftfootforward.org/2015/07/new-labour-survey-puts-yvette-cooper-in-the-lead/

Still, I think, all to play for.

 

[Drifter]

Lot of panicking going on amongst the Tory lite. Really hope Corbyn can pull it off and Labour can grow some.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

A "new" labour if you will. Can or would they simply negate the voter's choice?

Would have to be a new-New Labour.

 

[Classical Mechanic]

I know you've said in part but do you really think one of the main reasons behind them losing was their policies being too left leaning?

I don't think that's the case at all. The Lib dems voters didn't go tory because they thought Labour were too far left and neither did the Scottish with the SNP.

Saying the Tories got in so the population has moved right is rather simplistic and ignores the effect of the SNP, Ed Millibands lack of message or personality, and of course the narrative of Labours economic incompetence.

Fact of the matter is that no non centre party has taken government in this country for over twenty years. The majority of people are repelled by the Union supported Labour left. You are seriously deluded if you think that version Labour are getting in power anytime soon. Blair only became electable after he positioned himself away from the left.

The Tories find all this hilarious because the Labour left are incapable of accepting the state of play and talk themselves into an alternative reality. Oh well.

 

[711]

I realise this is the Labour leadership thread, but looking at the political news in the media it seems strange that so much attention is being spent on a possible Labour lurch to the left, whilst the Tories, who are actually in power and actually in the middle of making real changes here and now, have moved so far to the right. I'm kind of to the right within Labour, so I don't particularly want Corbyn, but these right-wing Tories frighten me a whole lot more.

And whilst I'm on ... with regards to last election I think a lot of folk have confused a surprise win with an emphatic one. The Conservatives polled 36%, it wouldn't take much of a swing against them at all, to anyone, and they will be a one-term government.

 

[soap]

They're not starting from the position of asking what the country wants.

Which is a Conservative government, no?

@IrishLegend What about Labour last time was too left wing for you? By my measure Miliband was a centrist at best and its this government is far more removed from the centre ground than Labour have been in decades.

 

[bishblaize]

Which is a Conservative government, no?

You noticed.

 

[soap]

And whilst I'm on ... with regards to last election I think a lot of folk have confused a surprise win with an emphatic one. The Conservatives polled 36%, it wouldn't take much of a swing against them at all, to anyone, and they will be a one-term government.

True, but the thing is the Tories won largely because they were seen as being stronger on the economy. The time for challenging that was this election and they didn't even try. its going to be far harder to do that in five years unfortunately so its hard to see anything other an increased majority.

 

[711]

True, but the thing is the Tories won largely because they were seen as being stronger on the economy. The time for challenging that was this election and they didn't even try. its going to be far harder to do that in five years unfortunately so its hard to see anything other an increased majority.

I'll 'True' you back . I wonder though, how many of the conservative voters realised just what they were voting for. Someone above considered 20 years almost unimaginable, well it's been 25 since we've had a right-wing conservative government. The coalition is much more in people's memories, and as far as policy goes it very much was a coalition. Can we see anything but an increased majority? 'Events, dear boy, events'. Harold Wilson claimed he left Labour as the natural party of government. Both Thatcher and Blair seemed unassailable for a good while, yet both are now loathed by many.

 

[Ubik]

I realise this is the Labour leadership thread, but looking at the political news in the media it seems strange that so much attention is being spent on a possible Labour lurch to the left, whilst the Tories, who are actually in power and actually in the middle of making real changes here and now, have moved so far to the right. I'm kind of to the right within Labour, so I don't particularly want Corbyn, but these right-wing Tories frighten me a whole lot more.

And whilst I'm on ... with regards to last election I think a lot of folk have confused a surprise win with an emphatic one. The Conservatives polled 36%, it wouldn't take much of a swing against them at all, to anyone, and they will be a one-term government.

Labour's defeat was certainly emphatic, and I think the swing Labour needs to win a majority next time round is larger than the one Blair achieved in '97. Again, they have to win Kensington ffs. And if it looks like there's limited chance of that kind of swing happening (and I'd say it'll look non-existent), the exact same "Labour and the SNP" stories will come up again, and people will be highly put off by it again.

Fact of the matter is that no non centre party has taken government in this country for over twenty years. The majority of people are repelled by the Union supported Labour left. You are seriously deluded if you think that version Labour are getting in power anytime soon. Blair only became electable after he positioned himself away from the left.

The Tories find all this hilarious because the Labour left are incapable of accepting the state of play and talk themselves into an alternative reality. Oh well.

They're in perpetual delirium right now by the looks of it. It would be like them voting in John Redwood.

 

[berbatrick]

I don't live in the UK and I'm not fully aware of the details of this race, but I've been following the thread and have read a few articles in the Guardian about this. I also read about the welfare cuts voting fiasco in parliament.

Basically, for the Labour supporters opposing Corbyn tooth-and-nail and especially those who support Liz Kendall, what are your disagreements with the Conservatives, and do you think her policies will address any of them?

@Ubik @bishblaize @IrishLegend

 

[Fearless]

True, but the thing is the Tories won largely because they were seen as being stronger on the economy. The time for challenging that was this election and they didn't even try. its going to be far harder to do that in five years unfortunately so its hard to see anything other an increased majority.

Completely agree.

Even if Cameron pulls off just half his manifesto, and the economy is better (which looks inevitable), the Tories are home dry.

Labour on the other hand have a massive identity crisis. And if they think that polarising to the left will help , then they really are in trouble.

 

[jeff_goldblum]

That would only be true if Corbyn would have won with their support.

This is not a case of Labour telling the voters that Corbyn is unelectable. Its listening to the voters telling us that Corbyn is not what they want. Listen to the far left parts of the party discuss the leadership campaign and its entirely about which leader will satisfy their needs and their interests. They're not starting from the position of asking what the country wants.

The electorate has been clear on what they want and don't want. All the analysis we’ve had so far has been the same. Going back to them with a new leader who gives them even less of what they want and even more of what they don't want is going to have a very predictable outcome.

There’s a certain give and take when it comes to setting the direction of a party. You have to bring other people round to your way of thinking, but at the same time you need to represent them and work for them in line with how they want the country run. Invariably you have to meet them more than halfway to get them on board and get them to listen to you, and then, when there’s trust there, you get the opportunity to take them in the direction you want to go.

Amongst the candidates, Corbyn represents the position that is furthest away from what the general population is looking for, and he represents the part of the party least interested in meeting people half way. The far left are busy saying that Kendall, and even Burnham ffs, may as well be Tories because they're not left enough. Which is basically saying that if you're centre left or centre, you should go and vote Tory. Which means that even if the entire country could be moved as far left as he is, which I doubt very much anyway, he's approaching it in the way least likely to be successful.

If he were some truly breakthrough visionary figure, then perhaps he could bring people around en masse by the sheer will of his personality & vision. But I doubt even his most ardent supporters could claim that. Just because Corbyn is likeable & honest doesn’t mean people want him in Number 10.

Its worth pointing out too that no-one within the party is objecting to Corbyn because of who he is. No-one’s complaining about his age, his sex, or his jaunty hats. They’re looking at his ideas, looking at the electorate, and seeing such a vast disconnect between the two that there's a genuine fear of what would happen if he were put in charge.

Has the electorate been clear? When? The right-wing media painted Miliband as coming from the left-field but aside from the odd good point or policy he wasn't all that far off what the Tories were offering. The electorate rejecting a centrist Labour candidate doesn't prove they wouldn't vote Corbyn any more than it proves that they would.

The bolded sounds nothing at all to me like the process by which the right of the party came to dominate the PLP and the party hierarchy. It did so by entirely ignoring the wishes of the party grassroots and gutting internal party democracy, not by building trust. The disconnection between Labour and it's traditional support cost the party in some key seats as much as the floating voters did. New Labour's chickens came home to roost in Scotland and amongst working class folks in England who jumped ship to UKIP because they didn't feel represented.

 

[711]

Labour's defeat was certainly emphatic, and I think the swing Labour needs to win a majority next time round is larger than the one Blair achieved in '97. Again, they have to win Kensington ffs. And if it looks like there's limited chance of that kind of swing happening (and I'd say it'll look non-existent), the exact same "Labour and the SNP" stories will come up again, and people will be highly put off by it again.

And yet the figure is still there, the Tory vote was 36%. Few governments increase their vote at the following election. They may remain the largest party, but whether they will have a majority next time is wide open. And their list of prospective coalition partners is as long as Liverpool's premiership wins.

 

[Ubik]

And yet the figure is still there, the Tory vote was 36%. Few governments increase their vote at the following election. They may remain the largest party, but whether they will have a majority next time is wide open. And their list of prospective coalition partners is as long as Liverpool's premiership wins.

37% if I'm allowed to be pedantic. It may fall, as everyone was certain it would do this time round (it rose). If the economy's going well and Labour's still in the shitter, I'd bet on them getting over 40% and a far larger majority (dependent on Tory leader choice, of course). Labour now need a couple of percent more in the popular vote to just level peg in seats now with Scotland gone. I'm not optimistic, put it that way. Oh, and they'll probably put through the boundary review whcih benefits them. Thumbs up all round.

 

[ThierryHenry]

Is anyone concerned about age? He'll be 71 at the next election, and would therefore be 76 by the end of 'his' Parliament if he won.

 

[Mozza]

Labour's defeat was certainly emphatic.

Disagree with this, they lost emphatically to the SNP, with the Tories they swapped seats at the election, if I recall correctly they may even have gained a seat overall. The Tories won the election by taking Lib Dem MPs

 

[Untied]

The discussion of the centre ground is winding me up.

It seems to be defined by the proximity to current conservative policy which is ridiculous.

Eg apparently Liz Kendall's support for pressing those children guilty of having more than one sibling into povery qualifies her as the centre left candidate.

There also seems to be a great deal of circularity with regards to defining it. Only centre ground policies can win an election, this Conservative government won an election therefore they must occupy the centre ground, despite every other policy decision screaming the opposite.

Blair came out against the reactionary far leftism today, and that is what made the headlines. But if you ask me his speech was also a challenge to the moderates to find something positive to stand for. Progressive centre left ideas. The candidates, Corbyn apart, are defining themselves through which Conservative policies they agree or disagree with

 

[Ubik]

Disagree with this, they lost emphatically to the SNP, with the Tories they swapped seats at the election, if I recall correctly they may even have gained a seat overall. The Tories won the election by taking Lib Dem MPs

They didn't win back voters they lost to the Tories in 2010 (an election with an incredibly unpopular leader after a massive recession that Labour was blamed for), they collapsed in Scotland and as you say, plenty of disaffected Lib Dems would rather switch to the Tories than vote Labour. I felt it was pretty emphatic personally, after five years of Tories implementing cuts and failing on plenty of manifesto pledges. Plus, Labour lost a disproportionate amount of the vote to the Tories in key marginal constituencies. They did excellently against them in London but terribly in the Midlands, the South and even Wales. A bit like our losses to Barca in the CL finals, scorelines weren't too bad, but the losses overall were comprehensive.

 

[Untied]

They didn't win back voters they lost to the Tories in 2010 (an election with an incredibly unpopular leader after a massive recession that Labour was blamed for), they collapsed in Scotland and as you say, plenty of disaffected Lib Dems would rather switch to the Tories than vote Labour. I felt it was pretty emphatic personally, after five years of Tories implementing cuts and failing on plenty of manifesto pledges. Plus, Labour lost a disproportionate amount of the vote to the Tories in key marginal constituencies. They did excellently against them in London but terribly in the Midlands, the South and even Wales. A bit like our losses to Barca in the CL finals, scorelines weren't too bad, but the losses overall were comprehensive.

Lib Dems went Green and UKIP. Green for the young, UKIP for the protest votes. The Conservative won those seats thanks to the single biggest failing of FPTP, a split vote. It's hard to know whether those constituencies will rally around a single opposition candidate next time around though or whether the damage to the Lib Dems is deeper and longer lasting.

 

[Ubik]

Lib Dems went Green and UKIP. Green for the young, UKIP for the protest votes. The Conservative won those seats thanks to the single biggest failing of FPTP, a split vote. It's hard to know whether those constituencies will rally around a single opposition candidate next time around though or whether the damage to the Lib Dems is deeper and longer lasting.

They went there as well, but they still went Tory in large numbers (and in key constituencies). The below graphic is a fairly good approximation I think:

 

[sun_tzu]

Lib Dems went Green and UKIP. Green for the young, UKIP for the protest votes. The Conservative won those seats thanks to the single biggest failing of FPTP, a split vote. It's hard to know whether those constituencies will rally around a single opposition candidate next time around though or whether the damage to the Lib Dems is deeper and longer lasting.

Perhaps if corbyn wins the likes of kendall and Chukka will defect to the libs?.. Fresh start for all concerned?

 

[Untied]

They went there as well, but they still went Tory in large numbers (and in key constituencies). The below graphic is a fairly good approximation I think:

Still sort of agrees with my point though. They broke 4-1 against the Conservatives and yet that still handed the Conservatives the seats.

 

[Ubik]

Still sort of agrees with my point though. They broke 4-1 against the Conservatives and yet that still handed the Conservatives the seats.

I would agree certainly that FPTP plays a big part, as the large amount of Lib Dems that went over to Labour largely just served to either bolster already large majorities in safe seats, or boost the vote in seats they're never going to win, with relatively few actually producing Labour gains. But Lib Dems still went Conservative, particularly in their south-west heartlands, and that was important.

Also on the point about uniting behind single anti-Tory candidates - I don't see this happening at all for the sorts of reasons that this thread is emblematic of, anti-Toryness comes in many flavours that largely don't blend together. Many people here will define it as upholding and remaining true to traditional Labour (or just socialist) values without concession, even if the result is time spent out of power, whereas others (including myself) regard anti-Toryness as being able to keep them out of power, preventing them from pursuing their agenda and preferring instead to have a moderate, liberal and progressive Labour party of government that can still be radical and redistributive in ways that Conservative ones will not.

 

[soap]

Off topic, but should Corbyn win, might it be possible that the Greens dont stand in some seats and encourage their supporters in those areas to vote Labour? No idea of this is remotely precedented or even feasible

 

[IrishLegend]

I don't live in the UK and I'm not fully aware of the details of this race, but I've been following the thread and have read a few articles in the Guardian about this. I also read about the welfare cuts voting fiasco in parliament.

Basically, for the Labour supporters opposing Corbyn tooth-and-nail and especially those who support Liz Kendall, what are your disagreements with the Conservatives, and do you think her policies will address any of them?

@Ubik @bishblaize @IrishLegend

For me as a 27 year old (so granted I'm not that old) Labour have been better on Education, Local Government, and Housing than the Conservatives, Their views on Immigration reflect mine (Immigration is good, get fecked dailyfail) more than the right of the Conservative Party (although I'm against membership in the EU *hows that for complicated!*). All in all though I look at each election as it comes but the primary concern for me is always the Economy and aspects that affect my everyday life (Public Transport, Job Prospects, Hospitals *btw I do no but the 'labour is better for the NHS argument at all'), If you can't get the economy right you have no chance of getting the rest done. Labour VASTLY overspent while in government and there are still people to this day denying that they did.

Liz Kendall is the only one I would actually trust to run the economy.

 

[Cheesy]

Off topic, but should Corbyn win, might it be possible that the Greens dont stand in some seats and encourage their supporters in those areas to vote Labour? No idea of this is remotely precedented or even feasible

I don't think it's too ridiculous an idea in areas where the Greens aren't too popular, but are popular enough to potentially stop Labour from winning the seat itself. I think the Greens are going to lose a lot of support anyway if Corbyn gets in, since he's probably somewhere similar to them on the political spectrum, although in a much bigger party.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

Yeah if Corbyn gets in a lot of Green voters (and voters aligned with other minor left wing parties) will go to Labour.

 

[bishblaize]

Has the electorate been clear? When? The right-wing media painted Miliband as coming from the left-field but aside from the odd good point or policy he wasn't all that far off what the Tories were offering.

There's a little evidence emerging showing the problem Labour has. The graph that Ubik helpfully added above (here's the full link) suggests the problem. At first it seemed that the Labour vote had held up in the election and that Lib Dem votes had gone to the Tories and to UKIP. Actually what seems to have happened is that Labour has lost a lot of votes to the Tories and UKIP, and disaffected Lib Dems propped up the vote. Indeed according to the linked analysis, in England, for every voter that dropped the party to go left, 3 dropped them and went to the right. Which makes the assumption that what they really wanted all along was a 'proper' left wing party very dubious. To conclude that Milliband wasn't left enough so they voted Tory is hard to support.

Similarly this study outlines some of the specific concerns that Labour has been hearing. Its a study of people who voted Labour in 2010 but changed their vote in 2015, in key marginals that the party needed to win at the election but didn't. The concerns summarised below are not new but worth repeating

Labour was blamed for overspending. ...it was also felt that Labour didn’t offer a credible plan to fix the economy themselves. In fact Labour was in denial about the mess they caused. These voters wanted the Labour Party to apologise for borrowing and spending too much.

As well as having a weak leader, Labour appeared to them to be anti-business and against those who were making something of their lives. Labour wanted to tax successful people more and, it was said, only cared about people at the bottom end. There was nothing wrong with Labour talking about minimum wage, food banks and zero hours (although some worried that this agenda would hit small businesses). But it was wrong that Labour talked about nothing else that affected the lives of these (now former-) Labour voters. These voters were starting to perceive the Tories as the party of people like them, of working people; and not Labour. They couldn’t see themselves reflected in what Labour was saying and caring about

This echoes what we're hearing in Manchester, and according to many Labour MPs they're hearing it all over the country. Even the caf's general election thread has the same sentiments. Its true that many of these concerns are manufactured by the press and the Tories. But so what? That's what people believe, that's what the party has to deal with. If you go a goal down to a penalty that came from a dive, you don't just pretend the score is still 0-0.

There may be more evidence that emerges in England that changes the picture, since the reliability of any political data is open to question these days. But neither should it be ignored outright. At worst it represents a provisional starting point for what the party has to deal with. Any political strategy for the party from here onwards has to a) avoid losing more votes to the right and b) address the concerns that people who have left Labour have raised. I really don't see Corbyn even considering these issues, never mind offering solutions to them.

 

[SteveJ]

Sometimes RAWK nails it:

Austerity is killing people. Cameron said no front line cuts in my job and we've seen over a 50% frontline cut in my public sector workforce. I'm exhausted again after nights where we are so shortstaffed and the workload just gets greater and greater. After being told we are facing our third shift system in two years to pay for austerity, constantly being bullied by vicious managers promoted because they don't care, watching my wages lose over a quarter of their value and work becoming more physically and mentally draining, watching my contributions go up and my benefits go down as my pension is being destroyed, watching peoples age and their health deteriorate as they give up hope, being told because of the budget settlement they want more cuts 25%, watching a highly motivated workforce being ground down and hating their job. Watching our cleaner being given impossible amounts of work, until he cracks and has a breakdown, to make money for some private firm sucking up money from the public sector.

Getting home and seeing the pressure my wife is under constantly battling a broken system trying to make sure working class people get decent health care, when I complain she's over three hours late again and her tea is ruined, she makes me ashamed by replying 'Would you want me to leave on time if it was your mother I was dealing with, I needed to make sure she got the best treatment and was comfortable and not let down in her last days'. On my days off the let-up is no better, having to scrape up money to get our daughter accommodation at university worrying we can't afford to do the same for my son. I never thought I'd face the problem of not being able to afford to finish my kids education.

Going to funerals of friends and family destroyed by drugs or suicide in a society breaking down...for those interested running total this year: two suicide, two heroin, one alcohol and one shooting. Having to spend days of worry trying to sort out relatives who are on the breadline because their money is stopped, watching relatives with terminal cancer having their money stopped, watching my Mother in law who's dying having her housing benefit stopped cynically to meet targets, when we are on breaking point looking after our parents fighting to get them the best treatment to give them the dignity they installed in us. Watching my Dad with Alzhiemers, in a home shortstaffed, constantly fighting to make sure he's not falling through the gaps, realising the one thing he wanted to pass on to us - his pride a house that he's bought as a Liverpool docker - is being used to fund his care.

And the thing is I'm not alone. I hear the same from my workmates and friends, yet the Labour Party wants to remain relevant by not voting against austerity. It's not about clever manoeuvres amongst the political class, abstaining for effect; Burnham should be ashamed of himself. There are a massive section of working class people who have no voice who were buzzing listening to the maiden speech of the young girl from the SNP, Mharie Black. Everyone was sending it to each other on their phones in work, because it connects with their lives, makes sense. It's not about how left-wing you are, it's whether you are addressing some of the issues that are effecting what were core Labour voters, because if you aren't and you want to box clever at Westminister you'll lose that vote to indifference to politics, to the SNP in Scotland (who at least are opposing austerity) or worse the 'blame it on the immigrants' parties because they're a siren call to ordinary working class people who are not seeing any hope from Labour. Corbyn at least realises you need to oppose austerity, which laughingly is seen as left-wing in todays Labour party.

That's a belter of a post. It really brings home some of the despair felt by 'ordinary people', the very people the Labour Party was created to represent and fight for, to bring at last the end of feudalism. Then the markets crash, caused by the very system of over-lending and corrupt banking and we have austerity apparently everywhere for almost an entire decade and no prospect of it ending.

I was thinking about this last night and one of the things that annoys me about politicians is that THEY THEMSELVES do not appear to be embracing anything even remotely like austerity, with perhaps the notable exception of SNP apparently giving up their 10% pay rise to charity...and forgive me here but it's easier to make a sacrifice that you can ostensibly afford, isn't it...

No, the politicians award themselves a pay rise 10 times that of the frozen limit imposed on the public sector and the fattest cat of all has the fecking temerity to refer to it as a rate commensurate with the role! Emergency services and health care workers literally save lives every fecking day they work. What do you do, Cameron?

Then we look to the 'left' for a backlash against more corporate/institutional greed and injustice and find that they are too busy squabbling with each other over scraps from the poor man's opposition benches and justifying abstention on of all things welfare?

fecking hell.

Shame doesn't even enter into it when a group of people not experiencing austerity first-hand either actively push for more of it or utterly fail in their DUTY to oppose it.

 

[Penna]

I re-joined the Labour Party today after many years out of it. I'm going to vote for Corbyn in the leadership contest. I think he reflects what the Labour Party should be. The Lib Dems can occupy that central position if they want.

 

[jeff_goldblum]

@bishblaize

I'd say you were oversimplifying things a bit by attributing all the lost votes to the same cause. In reality you have loads of different groups with different motivations.

1) People who liked the centre/centre-right party under Blair but thought Ed Miliband's centre-left/centre position wasn't for them. These are your floating voters who probably went Tory or Lib Dems.

2) People on the left whose ties with Labour were severed under New Labour and jumped ship to various left-wing parties (Greens, SNP, smaller leftist groups).

3) People holding various political opinions who thought all the parties were too similar and just didn't bother voting. People who were generally sick of politicians and Westminister elites who did likewise.

4) People similar to the above group who went for UKIP as the 'anti-establishment' party. People who traditionally would have voted Labour but didn't get much out of the New Labour government, suffered under the coalition and plumped for Farage because he was offering a scapegoat and some simple solutions.

5) People who don't trust Labour anymore regarding the economy regardless of the political position they take.

6) People who didn't like, didn't trust or weren't inspired by Miliband as a person and as a leader.

Obviously those are still broad designations and there are clear overlaps between them, but my point is that you can't just look at the numbers of people who've left Labour since 2005 and assume they represent a homogeneous block of people who hold centre-right views who Red Ed alienated. It's way more complex than that and the establishment candidates/right-wing media pretending it's all black-and-white are doing so very disingenuously. It's no surprise that the corporate media have stepped up their rhetoric about electability since Corbyn has started to look like a serious candidate - they didn't really start to lay into Miliband until Murdoch realised that he might actually win and put through the anti-media domination law that Blair was meant to in 1997.