I just want the Tories out ASAP. All my thinking is geared towards what I think is best way to do that. I appreciate that others in this thread want the same but have different ideas on how to achieve that. I am not averse to Corbyn's politics in principle at all, just that I don't see them winning elections in the time frame that I feel they need to be won.
I will be voting for whoever has the best chance of keeping Corbyn out.
Your take is largely that there's no winning the next one, so there's something to be said for having a leader who will at least passionately oppose and hopefully 'energise the base' and bring some people back/bring some new people in... even if that does result in fewer MP's?None of this lot are overly capable of ousting the Tories, though. That's the problem.
Kendall's got little hope of winning, so she's pretty much done for this campaign. That leaves you with Burnham or Cooper. Do you honestly believe that either of them have a reasonable chance of winning the next election?
None of this lot are overly capable of ousting the Tories, though. That's the problem.
Kendall's got little hope of winning, so she's pretty much done for this campaign. That leaves you with Burnham or Cooper. Do you honestly believe that either of them have a reasonable chance of winning the next election?
Your take is largely that there's no winning the next one, so there's something to be said for having a leader who will at least passionately oppose and hopefully 'energise the base' and bring some people back/bring some new people in... even if that does result in fewer MP's?
Not winning no, but getting in the conversation. I also think it is imperative to move away from the unions.
In Europe since the financial crash we've seen a swathe of centre-right parties win over the left, Syriza isn't representative of the direction of travel. The most successful social democrat has probably been Matteo Renzi, a centrist. I'm not sure how you class Hillary Clinton having a 40 point lead for the nomination being given a headache, something a bit like Benn's "8 million votes for socialism"?I'm not seeing the Michael Foot and Neil Kinnock parallels. Its 2015 not the 80s/90s, the world has since shifted away from the left-right dichotomy of cold war politics, which back then had worked in favour of the right since they could always beat their opponents with the stigmatic commie/socialist/red brush. In Europe we're seeing a host of left-wing parties gaining ground and being elected and in the US a self-proclaimed socialist is also giving Hillary Clinton a considerable headache in democrat candidate nominations.
As already mentioned, if people listened to Corbyn's ideas then they'd quickly see they're not as radical as the doom-mongerers depict them to be. This whole myth of Labour having to shift to the center is exactly that - a myth. For starters there's no 'center' for them left to move into, and if someone like Cooper or god forbid Kendall were to be elected, then they'd just become another centre-right party largely indistinguishable from the Tories. That's not going to help them win an election.
If it's Cooper or Burnham, worst case scenario would probably be a trundle along to the same result as Ed. Worst case for Corbyn is a hell of a lot worse, and the best case isn't even that much better than 2015 (I'm not convinced it is at all). If people are happy with such a result, okay, but let's not pretend he'll be able to tap into a not-previously-detected desire for ramped up socialism in Nuneaton.
If it's Cooper or Burnham, worst case scenario would probably be a trundle along to the same result as Ed. Worst case for Corbyn is a hell of a lot worse, and the best case isn't even that much better than 2015 (I'm not convinced it is at all). If people are happy with such a result, okay, but let's not pretend he'll be able to tap into a not-previously-detected desire for ramped up socialism in Nuneaton.
In Europe since the financial crash we've seen a swathe of centre-right parties win over the left, Syriza isn't representative of the direction of travel. The most successful social democrat has probably been Matteo Renzi, a centrist. I'm not sure how you class Hillary Clinton having a 40 point lead for the nomination being given a headache, something a bit like Benn's "8 million votes for socialism"?
And there's always a centre to move into, what did Blair do to achieve centrist credentials in the run-up to '97? Pledge to match the Tory budget for their first few years, which they did. Whilst rapidly increasing funds to schools and hospitals, introducing the minimum wage and tax credits, other Tory stuff like that.
Who on here voted labour last general election.Out of interest...
Out of interest who on here voted labour last general election
Who will vote in the leadership election
How will you vote?
How may the outcome of said election change your vote in the next general election
Undecided. Kendall actually speaks like a human when you listen to her.
That is Labour's problem right now. They are just seen as a paler (weaker) version of the Tories. The principles behind the true Labour party movement seem to have been binned in favour of trying to win votes at any price. If the party continue to move right (sorry "centre") Corbyn will do well.What I meant by the 'moving to centre' comment was that Labour are already somewhere in the centre (and not to the left of it as many will claim), so a shift rightwards would put them in the centre-right to right end of the spectrum. There's little to distinguish the Blairite class of Tories from the Tories themselves.
That is Labour's problem right now. They are just seen as a paler (weaker) version of the Tories. The principles behind the true Labour party movement seem to have been binned in favour of trying to win votes at any price. If the party continue to move right (sorry "centre") Corbyn will do well.
Under Brown then Ed Milliband, the party has been moving left for the last 8 years. Not sure that can be disputed can it?
Yes, I'd dispute that. Over the years I've seen true left Labour parties and this is not left. Might having been trying to move left under Brown and Milli but it hasn't.Under Brown then Ed Milliband, the party has been moving left for the last 8 years. Not sure that can be disputed can it?
Yes, I'd dispute that. Over the years I've seen true left Labour parties and this is not left. Might having been trying to move left under Brown and Milli but it hasn't.
I'm not a particular fan of the Labour party even though I did vote for them. (A sort of anyone but the Tories type of vote). Many people I speak to won't vote Labour anymore because they feel (as the phrase goes) that the Labour party have failed the working man. It's true, they have. The country has enough centre/right parties. It needs a good solid left one now. It also needs good strong unions too.Which was the last left Labour Party you liked the look of?
I'm not a particular fan of the Labour party even though I did vote for them. (A sort of anyone but the Tories type of vote). Many people I speak to won't vote Labour anymore because they feel (as the phrase goes) that the Labour party have failed the working man. It's true, they have. The country has enough centre/right parties. It needs a good solid left one now. It also needs good strong unions too.
interesting link to the manifestos of the major parties since ww2 hereBut in terms of its political history, at what point would you say labour hit the right notes?
You seem to be conflating austerity with balanced budgets. You also seem to be confusing what is a necessary political tactic in order to win back trust (emphasising the need to balance the budget when it's what the electorate seem to be demanding these days) with a fetish for cutting spending. Again, Labour balanced the budget in the first few years in power after '97, running more surpluses than the Tories ever did, whilst still increasing funding to and improving public services. That is not conservatism, or Tory-lite, or whatever other bollocks is getting thrown around these days. Kendall's big thing is early years education, increasing funding to the time at school when studies show many of the future life chances of a person are essentially fixed, which currently (obviously) dramatically goes against those in the poorest areas. Again, this is not conservatism, it's public service investment. It seems to me that many on the left (mainly the students, unsurprisingly) these days seem to think "education" is summed up by tuition fees. It's not. I used to rail against tuition fees with the best of them but do you know what, in terms of debt it's the cushiest deal you could hope for. I'm happy for the money to be targeted at those who it could make so much more difference to.The big thing I don't really understand about the people backing Kendall is that by the time 2020 comes round her agenda wont be relevant anymore. There will be more poverty, more austerity and an even greater need to invest in the economy, and only Corbyn is offering that. What does Kendall offer to a country which has taken 10 years of austerity and needs to rebuild? More austerity?
You seem to be conflating austerity with balanced budgets. You also seem to be confusing what is a necessary political tactic in order to win back trust (emphasising the need to balance the budget when it's what the electorate seem to be demanding these days) with a fetish for cutting spending. Again, Labour balanced the budget in the first few years in power after '97, running more surpluses than the Tories ever did, whilst still increasing funding to and improving public services. That is not conservatism, or Tory-lite, or whatever other bollocks is getting thrown around these days. Kendall's big thing is early years education, increasing funding to the time at school when studies show many of the future life chances of a person are essentially fixed, which currently (obviously) dramatically goes against those in the poorest areas. Again, this is not conservatism, it's public service investment. It seems to me that many on the left (mainly the students, unsurprisingly) these days seem to think "education" is summed up by tuition fees. It's not. I used to rail against tuition fees with the best of them but do you know what, in terms of debt it's the cushiest deal you could hope for. I'm happy for the money to be targeted at those who it could make so much more difference to.
Centre-left parties in general only win these days when their ambition is to use the products of a healthy economy to invest in services (you'll notice the Tories have actually started using this argument lately to improve their standing on the NHS, it's an argument that goes over well with the public), but if you aren't trusted on the first part of that equation you aren't going to be able to do the second, the public just won't let you spend its money. That is what Kendall is trying to do. Not to bask in the laissez-faire warmth of a small state with people dying from lack of support, she was the Care minister and spent a lot of time working on how to get more power down to local services to improve the results for patients. She's actually trying to help them by being in power to allocate the resources. Jeremy Corbyn would shout against the cuts with the best of them and happily walk through the no lobby in every vote, as happened in the last parliament, and then in five years time the Tories will be back with an increased majority to prioritise tax cuts and no major service investment. It's socialism to wash your hands with.
So yeah, that's why people will vote Kendall. Not because we're secretly red Tories with a penchant for a "vile wench" (ffs).
There were a lot of measures in that bill and saying that her support for it overall somehow shows she does not believe in early years education is as disingenuous as saying the labour MP's who voted against the budget dont want to see rises in the minimum wage.I agree with the importance of the issue but her support for the child tax credit limits doesn't really back this up. Early years are important as long as you only have one sibling?
You seem to be conflating austerity with balanced budgets. You also seem to be confusing what is a necessary political tactic in order to win back trust (emphasising the need to balance the budget when it's what the electorate seem to be demanding these days) with a fetish for cutting spending. Again, Labour balanced the budget in the first few years in power after '97, running more surpluses than the Tories ever did, whilst still increasing funding to and improving public services. That is not conservatism, or Tory-lite, or whatever other bollocks is getting thrown around these days. Kendall's big thing is early years education, increasing funding to the time at school when studies show many of the future life chances of a person are essentially fixed, which currently (obviously) dramatically goes against those in the poorest areas. Again, this is not conservatism, it's public service investment. It seems to me that many on the left (mainly the students, unsurprisingly) these days seem to think "education" is summed up by tuition fees. It's not. I used to rail against tuition fees with the best of them but do you know what, in terms of debt it's the cushiest deal you could hope for. I'm happy for the money to be targeted at those who it could make so much more difference to.
Centre-left parties in general only win these days when their ambition is to use the products of a healthy economy to invest in services (you'll notice the Tories have actually started using this argument lately to improve their standing on the NHS, it's an argument that goes over well with the public), but if you aren't trusted on the first part of that equation you aren't going to be able to do the second, the public just won't let you spend its money. That is what Kendall is trying to do. Not to bask in the laissez-faire warmth of a small state with people dying from lack of support, she was the Care minister and spent a lot of time working on how to get more power down to local services to improve the results for patients. She's actually trying to help them by being in power to allocate the resources. Jeremy Corbyn would shout against the cuts with the best of them and happily walk through the no lobby in every vote, as happened in the last parliament, and then in five years time the Tories will be back with an increased majority to prioritise tax cuts and no major service investment. It's socialism to wash your hands with.
So yeah, that's why people will vote Kendall. Not because we're secretly red Tories with a penchant for a "vile wench" (ffs).
There were a lot of measures in that bill and saying that her support for it overall somehow shows she does not believe in early years education is as disingenuous as saying the labour MP's who voted against the budget dont want to see rises in the minimum wage.
You either apply the same logic that puts corbyn opposed to minimum wage rises...I didn't say she didn't believe in it. Just that her support of that measure didn't back up her belief in the importance of supporting children in the early years of life.
If Ubik is going to claim that she is passionate about defending children in their early years (I'm sure she is) you have to explain why she didn't oppose a measure that will only hurt children during those years. What else was in the bill that made it worth not opposing something contrary to her passion?
Suppose an MP passionately spoke in favour of the rights of same sex couples but then didn't vote against a budget that cut the married tax allowance for such couples: it would be fair to say that didn't back up their beliefs.
You either apply the same logic that puts corbyn opposed to minimum wage rises...
Or you accept that taking one point and twisting it to fit a pre-defined narrative is disingenuous to the debate
Well although you feel able to speak for corbyn I don't claim to know the mind of kendal.Not really. Because Corbyn would say that opposing the cuts to tax credits justifies opposing a rise in minimum wage. I asked which parts of the bill justified Kendall not opposing an attack on an area she feels passionate about.
You say it doesn't work and that the Tories know that, but the economy's growing fairly quickly and the electorate trust them on it to a far greater extent than Labour. No amount of Paul Krugman articles posted on the internet are going to change that. Many in their party weren't confident of winning based on the faulty public polling, but their chief strategists Crosby and Messina were both pretty sure that they were based on their own data and because Cameron and the Tories were always miles ahead on the two fundamentals - leadership and economic competence. So it proved.The problem I have with Kendall is that her tactic to raise funds is to cut until we don't have a deficit and then start spending again - a tactic which economists have said wont work, because cutting spending to get rid of the deficit hurts the economy more than the existence of the deficit does. It sounds good if you've bought the shite the Tories come out with, but in reality it doesn't work. The Tories know that. It's worth keeping in mind that they thought they were going to lose this election.
A long-running problem with politics in this country is that politicians are more likely to base their policy ideas on what they think people want to hear instead of challenging orthodoxies and putting the argument across that there's a better way to do things. That's Kendall down to a tee, and Cooper and Burnham to a lesser extent. People are sick of that in the 21st century. They'll vote for something can be excited by and engage with. I very much doubt 5 years of Kendall proclaiming that the Tories are running the country badly whilst meekly agreeing in principle to their economic strategy is what's going to inspire a Labour victory in 2020. Not to mention that Labour shouldn't be supporting strategies that are making a lot of peoples' lives absolutely miserable.
It was, basically to avoid the Osborne trap. He wants to brand Labour as the party of welfare and the Tories the party of work. If he succeeds, it would be disastrous for Labour.Well although you feel able to speak for corbyn I don't claim to know the mind of kendal.
Though I believe she actually abstained as per the official party policy didn't she (I may be wrong on that)
You say it doesn't work and that the Tories know that, but the economy's growing fairly quickly and the electorate trust them on it to a far greater extent than Labour. No amount of Paul Krugman articles posted on the internet are going to change that. Many in their party weren't confident of winning based on the faulty public polling, but their chief strategists Crosby and Messina were both pretty sure that they were based on their own data and because Cameron and the Tories were always miles ahead on the two fundamentals - leadership and economic competence. So it proved.
