Yeah, he's just really, really bland. I don't particularly agree with Kendall, but she does seem to hold her own opinions at least. Cooper's not particularly brilliant and can be quite bland, but probably isn't as bad as Burnham for the lack of substance.
next labour leader
- Thread starter sun_tzu
- Start date
Yeah, he's just really, really bland. I don't particularly agree with Kendall, but she does seem to hold her own opinions at least. Cooper's not particularly brilliant and can be quite bland, but probably isn't as bad as Burnham for the lack of substance.
He just never answers the question. Just says we need to seriously start looking into it. It's beyond frustrating.
Agree about Kendall I think she knows she won't win, but is just raising points of discussion which is good. Cooper unlike Burnham, has some substance.
Agree, bland is exactly the word I used when I saw Burnham on QT. Kendall definitely sounds less like a politician than the other two to me, I think it's her speech patterns
I think @LARulz nailed it when he said that Burnham just has a habit of saying that we need to address certain things. He doesn't seem to have any interesting solutions or policies, just ideas as to what needs fixed or improved, which would probably sound quite impressive if people weren't completely bored of it.
Thats the problem here - now the Tories have put the economy back on track, Cooper, Kendall and Burnham have got absolutley nothing to say. Theirs is just three-way contest based on who can say nothing at all in the most impressive way.
Corbyn is a different proposition altogether, which in essence is all he's got, and clearly, given his dreary opposition, is all he needs.
Jez is perhaps the blandest and least charismatic of the lot. He has different content but no skill in delivering it as an orator IMO. I think that Burnham comes across as manufactured. He looks and sounds like an off the shelf politician. I think that Cooper has the most human quality, if you like. Kendall is quite slick, which is often unappealing.
Cooper's actually come into her own a little bit in the past few weeks but just way too late in the day, and Corbyn probably still would've won anyway.
Corbyn's fairly bland in his delivery, but it works for him. He manages to come across as being opinionated without being overly forceful or in your face. It makes it difficult for his opponents to disagree with him strongly and not appear as if they're losing control; he's got this sort of quality wherein he can kind of remain calm and collected whenever he's speaking.
Cooper's not too bad a politician, but I don't really agree with her coming across as the most human-like. She's got a bit of the awkwardness that Miliband had, although not to the same extent.
Not sure why you think that. What is certainly true though is that we've entered a period of increasing social conservatism in the UK. People don't want austerity the economic tool, since few people understand what the even means. They want austerity insofar as it implies self-sufficiency, independence and discipline. What Labour needs to do is demonstrate that careful and strong financial management and investment are not mutually exclusive, and that anti-austerity does not mean wild spending and profligacy.
But your wing of the party has been putting forward this line that 'economic credibility' for Labour means to apologise for its past record on spending and be even stronger on deficit reduction than it has been so far (meaning big cuts - or 'tough decisions' as they like to put it). There is not even a hint of anti-austerity politics there.
Labour need to do now what they should have done years ago; relentlessly push the narrative of investment and growth against cuts, even as an alternative deficit reduction strategy, alongside taxing the rich and preventing tax avoidance. Corbyn's the only one doing that so far, imperfectly though he may be doing it. The others are frankly cowards.
'Growth over cuts' would be a strong slogan IMO.
Taxing the rich (until they feck off), printing cash. That's what makes Corbyn primitive politics of envy laughable. And I bet his shirt stinks.
It's only strong if the economy's not growing. Labour pushed it plenty whilst growth had ground to a halt and it didn't count for anything come election time. And as it happens, I seem to remember the IFS said that according to Labour's plan in 2015, the slower pace of balancing the current budget meant that little in the way of further cuts would be needed.
The whole tag of austerity is misleading, and most people don't understand the deficit, as in we're still borrowing more than we receive in income. Austerity is fiscal discipline, but that wouldn't get the same headlines. The last Labour party looked credible on the economy until the wheels fell off the global economy, and we realised nothing had been saved for a rainy day. The last couple of years of their reign have tarnished the view of Labour's economic competence. To stand a chance in 2020 a credible leader and economic plan is needed.
Bollocks, Labour never pushed that line. It was always that "the Tories are cutting too far and too fast" rubbish. Vote for us, we'll cut more slowly, and not as much. Absolutely piss-weak.
Labour never shut up about it whilst growth stagnated, there was plenty of criticism that the Tories had shut off capital spending early on and that there should be a stimulus to boost growth. Ed Balls never missed an opportunity to whip out his five point plan for jobs and growth. As a message though, it tends not to resound with the public when growth suddenly accelerates and the government can brag about "the most people in work ever". Hence the talk turned to the "cost of living crisis".
And now a people's qe from a non independent bank of England is the plan to fix that
What were the 3 pundits who weren't Owen Jones seeing? Fair enough they thought Cooper ended strongly (I personally found most of her ending ludicrously contrived and transparent), that doesn't explain how was Corbyn was the back foot. Because he didn't start shouting back?
My view is that borrowing to invest is perfectly sensible where you can reasonably expect growth to outweigh the cost of borrowing, but it's a decision that requires careful management.
But that doesn't mean that all cuts are economically harmful, all spending is economically beneficial or that deficits greater than the level of growth can be supported in perpertuity.
Last edited:
Nonsense. The Chinese economy shows that governments can pump money into the balloon forever and it will never burst.
Or maybe not..
No mention that about 80% of people thought Corbyn performed best in the Sky debate the other night? Especially positive responses to his foreign policy, ideas on dealing with IS and on the refugee crisis.
That's because everyone else realises it only tells us one thing - lots of his supporters were watching the programme.
I actually think this refugee thing looks like it could be Corbyn's first big challenge. A couple of days ago the plight of the migrants supported the liberal angle quite well, but things have changed in the last 48 hours. I suspect that over the coming weeks we'll see the Mail et al showing more and more images of the humanitarian plight, with the line being pushed that further air strikes are needed to try and stop more people suffering in the same way. @Pogue Mahone highlighted the moment when the Daily Mail flipped on the story & found someone to blame that they were comfortable with (ISIS). The Torygraph have already got busy using the crisis to attack Corbyn.
If the idea takes hold that air strikes are necessary to try and prevent a growing humanitarian crisis, and a vote goes in front of the house, then the problem for Corbyn is fairly clear. If he votes against it, he can be accused of putting his principles over the lives of others, or making Britain irrelevant on the world stage or any other number of damaging claims. If he votes for it, well, lets just say he won't be invited to the next Stop the War Coalition rally.
The other thing of course would be about whether he could bring the party with him. Could be the first big test of his ability to take the party with him on his agenda.
Edit: another story along the same line http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...fugee-crisis-early-if-Jeremy-Corbyn-wins.html
Last edited:
I think it's a little disingenuous to dismiss any and all pro-Corbyn sentiment in this manner. Given that when he came into this contest he was basically unknown and was seen as a rank outsider with little popular support, it's daft to claim that 80.7% of a poll is meaningless. I have absolutely no doubt that if the same result came out praising Kendall or whoever many within the party and the press would readily use it as proof that the British people want to see a centrist Labour Party. On your other points, I think the hunger for military intervention amongst the British people is far less prevalent than in its press. Whatever the Mail and the Telegraph might say, people don't want to see British forces, whether through air-strikes or through troops on the ground, in the Middle-East again.
Firstly, after Afghanistan and Iraq people understandingly have an aversion to politicians sending British soldiers off to war, especially in working-class communities who bear the brunt of the casualties and secondly, it's a simple truth that western military intervention in the Middle East has a long-track record of either not working or making things worse. There is a clear path of causation which leads from the invasion of Iraq in 2003 to the rise of IS and the current crisis and I think that's a point Corbyn will argue very effectively. I don't think he'll have a problem bringing the party with him, Labour's willingness to adopt neo-con foreign policy never really extended far beyond Blair's bubble of advisors, and it was a hard-sell for the PLP. If the party membership weren't skeptical of intervention in 2003 they certainly are now, and the party membership will have a key role in policy formation in a Corbyn-led Labour Party.
Last edited:
When it's driven through humanitarian grounds, Labour tends to go along with it. 11 Labour MPs voted against Libya action. 23 Labour MPs voted against air strikes against ISIS in Iraq. When they went against the original Syria vote a couple of years back, that was likely a fair part politically motivated plus there were genuine questions as to which opposition we'd be helping. Cameron's already basically said he won't even bother having a vote if Corbyn's leader, so as @bishblaize says the blame has been laid already.
As to the poll, do you know what the methodology was, who the sample was and such? I believe it was one of those things that track respondents as the debate goes on but can't be sure. All I'd ask is who the hell's watching Labour leader debates these days anyway? I got bored of them ages ago and I'm usually quite interested in that kind of thing.
Last edited:
As far as I understand it its not an opinion poll, its simply a poll of viewers. Its like asking the crowd at Old Trafford who the greatest team in the world is.
Not sure why you think that, YouGov & ORB polls both show 2/3 of people support additional air strikes in Syria.
Its important to remember that its mainly social liberal Labour supporters that were traumatised by the Iraq war. Lots of other people opposed the war, but really don't see it as the grave lesson that Labour's left think it is. I'm sure Osborne and Cameron are aware of the political lessons from Iraq, hence their decision not to take a unilateral decision on air strikes. On the other hand, they'll look at Blair's intervention in Kosovo (which Corbyn opposed btw) and see how that led him to international acclaim.
I'd also disagree with your opinion on the military in working class communities. No parent wants a child off in some war of course, and no-one wants british soliders dying needlessly. But to believe that the military, and military action, are unpopular is to misunderstand the outlook of social (small c) conservatives, which most working class communities tend to be. Far from being some neccesary evil, the millitary is intimately tied in to the social conservative mindset. Its a measure of Britain's importance in the world, its strength, its ability to stand up for itself. Rather than being unpopular among the working classes, its a source of nationalistic pride to have a military that has a place on the international stage.
Urgh, I just had I vision of the Labour Party being run by Yvette Cooper with Stella as her deputy.
Can you imagine?Sounds a hell of a lot better than Corbyn-Watson.
From a policy POV, yes. But I can't imagine a meeker pairing than Cooper and Creasy, and meekness is the last thing the party needs.
Sounds like a decent detective series tbf.
One of her priorities is to reduce the emails Labour send to their members?
I assume she's taking the piss right?
From what I gather, the 'Sky Pulse' thing meant that those watching could go online and give their opinions. Ultimately, 10,000 people were asked questions before and after they watched it, and also were asked to indicate positive or negative reactions during the debate itself. Obviously it wasn't a scientific polling in the least, but it gives some indication that Corbyn is capable of winning people over who previously didn't support him, or even the party. It also suggests that his policies are popular beyond the base the those who voted Labour in 2015 or, at least, more popular than those of his opponents for the leadership contest.
The thing that interested me was what you saw when you took away the 41% of those polled who voted Labour at the election. 64% of the remainder supported Corbyn (38% of Tory voters, 50% of Lib Dems, 57% of UKIP voters, 64% of non-voters, 100% of Green, SNP and 'other' voters).
As a member of one of those communities I'd say that summation comes off as a little patronizing. I can't speak for anywhere else but the impression you draw of working-class communities having a sort of colonial-era jingoistic attitude towards Britain's military exploits is certainly not accurate of my area. The realities of having your friends and family come back from war either physically or mentally scarred curb that sort of thing straight off the bat. Most people are proud of our soldiers but not of the governments who send them over-seas badly equipped and fail to properly care for them when they return.
edit - also, see the figures in my previous post, 59% of the people polled didn't vote Labour in 2015.
It is a bit tongue-in-cheek, yes, but also highlights some of the more farcical interaction MPs have with members of the public. I think she pulls it off fairly well.
Sounds self-selecting to me though. I genuinely have no idea why anyone's watching these debates still. The fact that 38% of Tories were supportive of him should also ring alarm bells. Either way the proof will come a couple of years down the line I suppose, I'm really hoping I'm fundamentally wrong because I don't want the Tories to be in power till I'm in my 40s, but I'm not optimistic.
I fail to see how calling people socially conservative could be considered patronising, unless you think there's something wrong it? I certainly don't. Or do you disagree that social conservatives value the army for symbolic as well as pragmatic reasons? Or that working class people regularly have socially conservative attitudes?
Anyway, an actual look at the rest of the data behind the YouGov poll I linked shows almost no difference in support for the military among C2DE social groups vs ABC1s (55% support vs 58% support), so I'm not sure why you think working class people have a materially different outlook here.
If you were a member of the Labour Party you would understand. It is tonge in cheek.
I live in a in Manchester, a through and through Labour area. Most of the people that I come across are socially conservative, working class to middle class. Genuinely liberal people are in the minority where I come from. The vast majority of people I talk to are also very politically shallow, much like in the BBC focus group posted on the other page.
I think you do underestimate how patriotic people are and I do believe that people want a strong Britain with a strong leader. I don't think that Corbyn will sell well at all on that level.
fecking hell I understand!!
so when will we actually know who the next leader is going to be? this has been going on even longer than the campaign for general elections