Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
Bilo

Next Leader of the Opposition

By Bilo, in General Chat

  

154 members have voted

  1. 1. Labour Party (v2)

    • Andy Burnham
      6
    • Yvette Cooper
      2
    • Jeremy Corbyn
      46
    • Liz Kendall
      7

Recommended Posts

Guest MattP

Guest MattP

Posted
Posted

Burnham/Kendall/Creagh/Cooper - Has there ever been a worse leadership race in history for a major political party? Listening to Burnham today you can even tell his heart isn't in it and probably thinks it's more trouble than it's worth. Anyone with a brain who wants to be the PM knows they should be waiting until 2025.

 

Massive odds shift with huge support for the gal from Leicester West (ironically could even be under threat in 2020 if the boundaries are redrawn towards the suburbs) Imagine an opposition leader losing the constituency.

 

I'd probably vote for Kendall purely on the fact at least she has a different haircut to the other three blokes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted

Burnham/Kendall/Creagh/Cooper - Has there ever been a worse leadership race in history for a major political party? Listening to Burnham today you can even tell his heart isn't in it and probably thinks it's more trouble than it's worth. Anyone with a brain who wants to be the PM knows they should be waiting until 2025.

 

Massive odds shift with huge support for the gal from Leicester West (ironically could even be under threat in 2020 if the boundaries are redrawn towards the suburbs) Imagine an opposition leader losing the constituency.

 

I'd probably vote for Kendall purely on the fact at least she has a different haircut to the other three blokes.

 

The one that Howard won?  :P   

 

Anyone was on a hiding to nothing going up against Bliar at near the height of his strength and most people involved in that contest seemed to know it too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest MattP

Guest MattP

Posted
Posted

The one that Howard won?  :P   

 

Anyone was on a hiding to nothing going up against Bliar at near the height of his strength and most people involved in that contest seemed to know it too.

 

It's actually very similar isn't it when you think about it? A party having to wrestle with it's natural desires versus changing them to make themselves electable.

 

The Labour lot might be thinking the same regarding going up against Boris.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Webbo

Webbo

Posted
Posted

Seeing as Chukka's pulled out I'm switching my vote to Kendall. Having said that I thought Ed Miliband was the best candidate last time and I didn't want Cameron to win the tory leadership, so I don't have a great track record  in picking winners. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Alf Bentley

Alf Bentley

Posted
Posted

Seeing as Chukka's pulled out I'm switching my vote to Kendall. Having said that I thought Ed Miliband was the best candidate last time and I didn't want Cameron to win the tory leadership, so I don't have a great track record  in picking winners. :D

 

 

Have you considered throwing your hat into the ring, Webbo?

 

I appreciate that many Blairites would find you a bit too left-wing, but maybe you could get a block vote from the Amalgamated Union of Painters & Decorators (on a strictly one-member-one-vote basis)?

 

#OneRedToryNationUnderAGlossCoat

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Webbo

Webbo

Posted
Posted

Have you considered throwing your hat into the ring, Webbo?

 

I appreciate that many Blairites would find you a bit too left-wing, but maybe you could get a block vote from the Amalgamated Union of Painters & Decorators (on a strictly one-member-one-vote basis)?

 

#OneRedToryNationUnderAGlossCoat

Labour would win a landslide if I were leader, I couldn't do that to the country.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
davieG

davieG

Posted
Posted

Immigration: Labour was 'squeamish' says Yvette Cooper

  • bout talking about immigration"

Labour was "squeamish" about talking about immigration in the past, Yvette Cooper has said.

In an interview broadcast on BBC Newsnight, the party's leadership contender said immigration needed to be "controlled" and "managed".

She also said that "ideally" the Labour government should have had a financial surplus before the crisis of 2008.

Ms Cooper is one of four MPs who have announced they will stand for the Labour leadership.

Andy Burnham, Liz Kendall and Mary Creagh are also standing.

Candidates are required to gather the signatures of 35 MPs by 15 June to make it on to the ballot paper.

The winner will be announced on 12 September.

'Controlled and managed'

Speaking to Newsnight's chief correspondent Laura Kuenssberg, Ms Cooper said: "I think it's not so much about exactly what the detail of the policies are, it's about not being squeamish about talking about immigration.

"Because it's important for Britain, but it has to be controlled and managed so that the system is fair... we should talk about the way we control and manage it but also the way you can benefit from high skilled migration from students coming from Britain."

Ms Cooper also said people like Alan Milburn and John Hutton, who have called for the party to skip a generation when choosing a new leader, were "trapped in the past".

She said they were "fighting battles from 2004 and 2005... wanting to settle old scores from the Labour Party's history."

She also said that she made "no apology for having experience" when the job is so tough.

Asked if it was wrong for the party to have run up a deficit before the financial crash, Yvette Cooper admitted: "I'm saying that ideally you would have had it in surplus, so yes, we should have had it in surplus by that time.

"However, what was the consequence of that? The Tories want to say that either it caused the financial crisis which it clearly didn't, or they want to say that it made it harder to deal with the financial crisis which it also didn't."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MiniFox

MiniFox

Posted
Posted

From yesterday, Andy Burnham views on welfare cuts and business:

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/29/labours-andy-burham-further-welfare-cuts-leader-business

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/29/andy-burnham-business-leaders-labour-enterprise-wealth-creators

 
‘In my Labour Party, the entrepreneur will be as much our hero as the nurse.’
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted

I have to say the Labour party is a joke. All falling over themselves to praise the Tories and praise Tory policy. Such a weak party.

 

They really should just join the tories and let Labour be a different party - as I've said before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Alf Bentley

Alf Bentley

Posted
Posted

I do wonder what they all mean, in practice, when they talk about "encouraging aspiration".

Is this anything more than code for "we should be Tories-lite": low tax for everyone, including the super-rich, with the inevitable decline in public services?

If so, why would people with those values vote for a Tory-lite Labour when they could vote for the real thing? They had that Tory-lite opportunity with the Lib Dems in 2015, and didn't exactly go for that, did they?! 

 

Whatever you think of them, Labour had policies to promote house-building, expand/improve apprenticeships, maintain education spending, prioritise small businesses, boost real pay, cut the cost of living and redirect tax towards those with seriously high incomes/wealth (£150k income, £2m house etc.). If those policies weren't "aspirational" enough, what would be? If people are seriously aspiring to a £150k income and a £2m house, I'm afraid most of those aspirations will be dashed.

 

Labour will need to do some serious research into the reasons for their defeat, but I suspect that the problem was more that they failed to make their case properly over the last 5 years - particularly on the economy. This meant that many people believed the lie that "Labour can't be trusted with the economy", particularly at a time of fragile recovery. This then left them wide open to the Tory smear tactic alleging that an alliance of "untrustworthy Labour" and "SNP extremists" would massively over-spend and ruin the economy.

 

A quick stat for you (source: ONS): 

- Net increase in deficit under Major 90-96: £226.7 bn 

- Net increase in deficit under Labour 97-07: £180.8 bn

So, prior to the global financial crash, the Tories "over-spent" by more in 7 years than Labour did in 11 years! And that's without taking account of some of the useful spending on schools and hospitals that went on under Labour. Yet the "irresponsible Labour over-spending" message was successful for the Tories. Labour simply lost the political argument, staying quiet and/or indulging in gimmick initiatives. :frusty: 

 

Here's an important bit of analysis: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/22/election-2015-who-voted-for-whom-labour-conservatives-turnout

So, compared to 2010, there was a large swing to the Tories among those groups with the highest turnout, like the elderly and higher-income groups. Meanwhile, turnout fell to very low levels among the young and lower-income groups....precisely the groups that switched most to Labour..... That's a pretty deadly combination!

 

It's interesting to look at seats where Labour did well and those where it did badly:

- Seats won from Tories (or unexpectedly from Lib Dems): Enfield, Ealing, Brentford, Ilford, Bermondsey, Hornsey, Wirral, Chester, Lancaster, Dewsbury, Wolverhampton

- Seats lost to Tories/marginals not taken: Leeds, Bolton, Rhyl, Southampton, Corby, Plymouth x 2, Derby, Telford, Nuneaton, Thurrock, Gower

Labour took seats in London, heavily Asian areas and the more leafy marginals. They failed badly in less "leafy", mainly white marginals - areas where people were more likely to feel fearful of the impact on their lives of a Labour government that would supposedly spend irresponsibly in alliance with Scottish extremists, sinking the economy and their livelihoods. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Webbo

Webbo

Posted
Posted

I do wonder what they all mean, in practice, when they talk about "encouraging aspiration".

Is this anything more than code for "we should be Tories-lite": low tax for everyone, including the super-rich, with the inevitable decline in public services?

If so, why would people with those values vote for a Tory-lite Labour when they could vote for the real thing? They had that Tory-lite opportunity with the Lib Dems in 2015, and didn't exactly go for that, did they?! 

 

Whatever you think of them, Labour had policies to promote house-building, expand/improve apprenticeships, maintain education spending, prioritise small businesses, boost real pay, cut the cost of living and redirect tax towards those with seriously high incomes/wealth (£150k income, £2m house etc.). If those policies weren't "aspirational" enough, what would be? If people are seriously aspiring to a £150k income and a £2m house, I'm afraid most of those aspirations will be dashed.

 

Labour will need to do some serious research into the reasons for their defeat, but I suspect that the problem was more that they failed to make their case properly over the last 5 years - particularly on the economy. This meant that many people believed the lie that "Labour can't be trusted with the economy", particularly at a time of fragile recovery. This then left them wide open to the Tory smear tactic alleging that an alliance of "untrustworthy Labour" and "SNP extremists" would massively over-spend and ruin the economy.

 

A quick stat for you (source: ONS): 

- Net increase in deficit under Major 90-96: £226.7 bn 

- Net increase in deficit under Labour 97-07: £180.8 bn

So, prior to the global financial crash, the Tories "over-spent" by more in 7 years than Labour did in 11 years! And that's without taking account of some of the useful spending on schools and hospitals that went on under Labour. Yet the "irresponsible Labour over-spending" message was successful for the Tories. Labour simply lost the political argument, staying quiet and/or indulging in gimmick initiatives. :frusty:

 

Here's an important bit of analysis: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/22/election-2015-who-voted-for-whom-labour-conservatives-turnout

So, compared to 2010, there was a large swing to the Tories among those groups with the highest turnout, like the elderly and higher-income groups. Meanwhile, turnout fell to very low levels among the young and lower-income groups....precisely the groups that switched most to Labour..... That's a pretty deadly combination!

 

It's interesting to look at seats where Labour did well and those where it did badly:

- Seats won from Tories (or unexpectedly from Lib Dems): Enfield, Ealing, Brentford, Ilford, Bermondsey, Hornsey, Wirral, Chester, Lancaster, Dewsbury, Wolverhampton

- Seats lost to Tories/marginals not taken: Leeds, Bolton, Rhyl, Southampton, Corby, Plymouth x 2, Derby, Telford, Nuneaton, Thurrock, Gower

Labour took seats in London, heavily Asian areas and the more leafy marginals. They failed badly in less "leafy", mainly white marginals - areas where people were more likely to feel fearful of the impact on their lives of a Labour government that would supposedly spend irresponsibly in alliance with Scottish extremists, sinking the economy and their livelihoods. 

But haven't all the Leadership candidates now said Labour shouldn't have run a deficit before the crash? I think running a deficit when you shouldn't translates as over spending to most people.

 

As for smears, Labour ran a few of them themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MooseBreath

MooseBreath

Posted
Posted

Labour just done have any credibility where it counts. You can promise to "cut the cost of living" as much as you like, if people don't believe you're capable they just won't believe you. And why would people think labour are capable of that? There's no evidence of that ever happening in the past. They didn't provide any compelling alternative to the course we're currently on. Every single one of their predictions from 2010 were drastically wrong.

Meanwhile the tories have done a solid job in most respects. Ultimately it's not about what you say you're going to deliver, it's what you actually do deliver. That's why the lib Dems are dead, and that's why labour have very few voters remaining who aren't either hooked on welfare, public sector workers or old fashioned white-guilt ridden "progressives" who have fallen out of touch with the real world. Most people simply don't believe labour are capable of improving the country to the same extent as the tories, if at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted

Labour just done have any credibility where it counts. You can promise to "cut the cost of living" as much as you like, if people don't believe you're capable they just won't believe you. And why would people think labour are capable of that? There's no evidence of that ever happening in the past. They didn't provide any compelling alternative to the course we're currently on. Every single one of their predictions from 2010 were drastically wrong.

Meanwhile the tories have done a solid job in most respects. Ultimately it's not about what you say you're going to deliver, it's what you actually do deliver. That's why the lib Dems are dead, and that's why labour have very few voters remaining who aren't either hooked on welfare, public sector workers or old fashioned white-guilt ridden "progressives" who have fallen out of touch with the real world. Most people simply don't believe labour are capable of improving the country to the same extent as the tories, if at all.

 

Labour got flattened in 1979 and 1983, they won a crushing majority a few years later. The Tories got absolutely crushed in 1997, now they're back with a majority (albeit a slim one).

 

In short, the wheel never stops turning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...