Next Leader of the Opposition

[MiniFox]

You can't really achieve anything positive with rent control.

Why?

[Webbo]

I don't have a problem with buy to let landlords. I have 3 daughters the youngest being 17. I hope they all manage to buy their own houses but if they can't, I don't blame landlords.

[ADK]

Why?

 

Because you are setting an artificial price cap without addressing the underlying issue which is lack of supply. You are also making it less likely for property developers to want to invest in the area which further restricts supply. You end up with demand that is unmet, so it will become difficult to get a house, with landlords discriminating much more than they already do and an increased likelihood of a black market of unregulated letting forming.

 

The only way to solve the problem is either increasing supply by building large quantities of housing in commuting range of the south, or decreasing demand by offering better quality jobs and services in other regions of the UK.

[Alf Bentley]

The post about housing was just an example, the point was less about housing and more about the fact that the same people who said they voted Tory based purely on (financial) aspirations, to then be angry at people for making money through an investment, is hypocritical in many ways, as they would willingly have financial gain at the expense of others just like their landlords. 

 

On the issue of housing, I'd agree it has nothing to do with aspirations, being more aspirational doesn't give you the opportunity to buy a house more so than the next person. But as explained above, those who cannot afford a house and at the same time voted Tory (For their aspirations) have simply been taken advantage of by their landlords own aspirations, you can't then go call those people "Greedy" when that's what you voted for;

 

Labour actually set out to cap rents to the rate of inflation, which surely would have helped the situation, but the people didn't vote for that, which seeing as it could have helped them secure their own homes, I'm not sure why?

 

Those who cannot afford their own home, they are in a powerless position, as you've said people are able to use their money to make more money at the expense of people, it's unfair because we all expect that once we work and particularly if you work hard, we should be almost entitled to have the opportunity to buy our own home, right now, that's not the case for many.

 

If you wan't to succeed, that's the best way to do it. 

 

 

Fair dos. I didn't appreciate that your "these people" comment related to Tory voters critical of right-to-buy.

 

As for why people didn't vote for Labour's policy on rent controls, I wonder how many people were aware of it? Most people don't pay as much attention to politics as those posting in this thread, and Labour announced quite a number of policies during the election campaign. A lot of those who did notice probably thought "more lying politicians with bullshit election promises" (likewise about the other parties).

 

That's why an opposition party needs to present a clear vision of what it is all about throughout most of the parliament. Of course, it can't announce every policy 5 years in advance, as circumstances change. But it can present a clear idea of its central purpose and values, illustrated by a few key policy announcements. Labour did make a few policy announcements well ahead of the election (e.g. freezing energy prices) but I'm not sure any coherent, over-arching vision/purpose was ever presented.

 

So, particularly as their costings were rather vague, it was easy for the Tories to scare people with the idea that, particularly with SNP influence, Labour would "spend recklessly and ruin the economy, like they did before". In some ways, the Tories' costings at the election were even more hair-raising.....but they'd been in government for 5 years, so voters could base a judgment on that. I assume a lot of people thought: "Not over-enthused with the Tories, but they've not been all that bad for me, and it's a bit scary what Labour might get up to, particularly if they're reliant on SNP support...Stick with the devil we know".

 

That analysis might be quite wrong. To find out, Labour need to do some serious research into why people voted as they did and how they formed their opinions of the party. They then need to see how they can present their vision/purpose to the public over the coming years, so that they're seen as a credible alternative to the Tories and aren't vulnerable to scare stories again. Simply replacing Miliband with someone who blathers on about being "the party of aspiration" is no way forward. A lot of voters may be ignorant about the detail of policies, but they usually have in-built bullshit detectors....and if Labour really opt for "aspirational" low-tax, low-spending policies, they risk haemorrhaging votes to UKIP, the Greens etc.

 

Purely anecdotal and untypical but.... (1) My sister-in-law's partner, normally a Labour voter who lives in the marginal Nuneaton seat and is struggling on low pay, didn't vote as he saw little difference between Lab and Con; I disagree, but he's hardly going to be won over by some Blairite like Kendall wanting to cut taxes for the aspirational middle classes; (2) I did go and vote Labour myself, but would not vote for some low-tax Blairite agenda.

[Webbo]

If you take out Tony Blair, Labour haven't won a majority since 1974. Socialism is a dying religion, nobody believes in it anymore. Labour need to redefine themselves. You can be for the workers without being against the bosses.

[Trav Le Bleu]

Can it be coincidence that Blatter has just stepped down?

[leicsmac]

If you take out Tony Blair, Labour haven't won a majority since 1974. Socialism is a dying religion, nobody believes in it anymore. Labour need to redefine themselves. You can be for the workers without being against the bosses.

 

A significant portion of Scandinavia would beg to differ, from the social viewpoint anyhow. From the economic viewpoint it's a bit more complicated as those countries seem to combine laissez-faire regulation with a strong sense of social responsibility and trust regarding contributing to help each other out.

 

Of course, what works in one place doesn't necessarily work in another, and we've almost always been at heart a pretty conservative country. Take the amount of people who choose to look back to when we were 'greater' than those who choose to look the the future. 

 

Do you reckon there's a correlation between past 'greatness' (eg. past empires that didn't get violently thrown down and the like) and a countries level of conservatism? Where does nationalism as a result of that come into it, I wonder, if at all?

[ADK]

I don't think you can really draw much of a conclusion about grand ideals like socialism and liberalism or conservatism from this election.

[leicsmac]

I don't think you can really draw much of a conclusion about grand ideals like socialism and liberalism or conservatism from this election.

 

Of course not, but that doesn't stop people trying.

 

Ideologies are cyclic, and the wheel never seems to stop turning.

[MiniFox]

Fair dos. I didn't appreciate that your "these people" comment related to Tory voters critical of right-to-buy.

 

As for why people didn't vote for Labour's policy on rent controls, I wonder how many people were aware of it? Most people don't pay as much attention to politics as those posting in this thread, and Labour announced quite a number of policies during the election campaign. A lot of those who did notice probably thought "more lying politicians with bullshit election promises" (likewise about the other parties).

 

That's why an opposition party needs to present a clear vision of what it is all about throughout most of the parliament. Of course, it can't announce every policy 5 years in advance, as circumstances change. But it can present a clear idea of its central purpose and values, illustrated by a few key policy announcements. Labour did make a few policy announcements well ahead of the election (e.g. freezing energy prices) but I'm not sure any coherent, over-arching vision/purpose was ever presented.

 

So, particularly as their costings were rather vague, it was easy for the Tories to scare people with the idea that, particularly with SNP influence, Labour would "spend recklessly and ruin the economy, like they did before". In some ways, the Tories' costings at the election were even more hair-raising.....but they'd been in government for 5 years, so voters could base a judgment on that. I assume a lot of people thought: "Not over-enthused with the Tories, but they've not been all that bad for me, and it's a bit scary what Labour might get up to, particularly if they're reliant on SNP support...Stick with the devil we know".

 

That analysis might be quite wrong. To find out, Labour need to do some serious research into why people voted as they did and how they formed their opinions of the party. They then need to see how they can present their vision/purpose to the public over the coming years, so that they're seen as a credible alternative to the Tories and aren't vulnerable to scare stories again. Simply replacing Miliband with someone who blathers on about being "the party of aspiration" is no way forward. A lot of voters may be ignorant about the detail of policies, but they usually have in-built bullshit detectors....and if Labour really opt for "aspirational" low-tax, low-spending policies, they risk haemorrhaging votes to UKIP, the Greens etc.

 

Purely anecdotal and untypical but.... (1) My sister-in-law's partner, normally a Labour voter who lives in the marginal Nuneaton seat and is struggling on low pay, didn't vote as he saw little difference between Lab and Con; I disagree, but he's hardly going to be won over by some Blairite like Kendall wanting to cut taxes for the aspirational middle classes; (2) I did go and vote Labour myself, but would not vote for some low-tax Blairite agenda.

That was probably unfair of me, they didn't vote for rent rises.

 

In relation to the rest of your post I agree, policy was often ignored by the media and by the public, policy was treated as less important than "Ed Miliband stabbing his brother in the back" or looking more like Prime Minister material, which I still have no idea what that means. 

 

Labours biggest issue not just in the election campaign but over the last 5 years (Like you said) is it was hard to define what Labour really stood for, although towards the end they did start to actually make this more clear by then it was too late.

 

I saw a article or report recently with a quote from an economist basically saying, people will blame party in power when something goes wrong, even if it is not their fault. Which is why some still blamed Labour for the crash, the Tories were able to play on this coupled with the SNP "threat" whether or not some people would like to admit it, Conservatives and Cameron were seen as the best of a bad bunch by voters.

 

With the smaller parties rising more and more, it is time for Labour to be genuine opposition, give people an alternative, if you're against the Tories, why on earth would you vote for an a party that is effectively the same?

 

Because you are setting an artificial price cap without addressing the underlying issue which is lack of supply. You are also making it less likely for property developers to want to invest in the area which further restricts supply. You end up with demand that is unmet, so it will become difficult to get a house, with landlords discriminating much more than they already do and an increased likelihood of a black market of unregulated letting forming.

 

The only way to solve the problem is either increasing supply by building large quantities of housing in commuting range of the south, or decreasing demand by offering better quality jobs and services in other regions of the UK.

Seems fair enough.

[Webbo]

A significant portion of Scandinavia would beg to differ, from the social viewpoint anyhow. From the economic viewpoint it's a bit more complicated as those countries seem to combine laissez-faire regulation with a strong sense of social responsibility and trust regarding contributing to help each other out.

 

Of course, what works in one place doesn't necessarily work in another, and we've almost always been at heart a pretty conservative country. Take the amount of people who choose to look back to when we were 'greater' than those who choose to look the the future. 

 

Do you reckon there's a correlation between past 'greatness' (eg. past empires that didn't get violently thrown down and the like) and a countries level of conservatism? Where does nationalism as a result of that come into it, I wonder, if at all?

I'm not really sure how you'd define conservatism, pragmatic libertarianism and free market economics? I don't think nationalism is necessarily a right/left issue. There are a wide range of opinions in all political parties.

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

I don't care who becomes leader. To even want to be a leader of that farcical mob, tells me all I need to know about them.

[Alf Bentley]

If you take out Tony Blair, Labour haven't won a majority since 1974. Socialism is a dying religion, nobody believes in it anymore. Labour need to redefine themselves. You can be for the workers without being against the bosses.

 

Religions have their ups and downs - more ups if they learn to adapt their ideas to the times and circumstances and present themselves convincingly. Until 2015, the Tories hadn't won a majority under anyone since 1992...and neither 1992 nor 2015 constitutes a ringing endorsement.

 

I'd have no argument with the bit in bold, though, Webbo. Global corporations play too important an economic role for Labour to ignore them or be hostile (though that's largely Tory rhetoric). They should work with them to mutual benefit where possible. But that doesn't mean accepting every demand or every instance of tax avoidance, for example. If you join a race to the bottom in tax, working conditions and deregulation, someone will always come along who'll grovel and debase themselves even more than you....better to co-operate long-term (e.g. infrastructure, education/training, fair taxes & incentives), but to take a stand against abuses when essential or possible.

 

At the election, Labour actually had some decent pro-business policies: support for small businesses, apprenticeships etc. Unfortunately, they only seemed to materialise very late in the day. If they had spent several years before the election consulting & promoting policies to support small business and apprenticeships, that might have gelled very well with policies on corporate tax avoidance, excessive profits by utilities, abuses by foreign gangmasters dragging down pay etc. Could have been quite a patriotic, populist vision. Simply adopting measures on utility prices and corporate tax avoidance in a vacuum allowed others to present them as anti-business.

 

Labour certainly should be pro-business, provided that is not at odds with building a fair, healthy society (no reason why it should be). But it shouldn't seek to ape the Tories with some low-tax, shrink-the-state Thatcherite agenda. What would be the point? If people want that, they've got the real thing to vote for - and if Labour got elected on that basis, they'd have to either run down public services or run up debts. As ADK said, all the talk of "aspiration" seems like dog-whistle politics to me, equating to low tax for the comparatively well-off. If Labour does not stand for some redistribution of wealth & opportunity and for public services for those who need them, it might as well give up now. It needs to win the votes of people struggling to get by in Nuneaton, Thurrock and Plymouth, not the votes of well-heeled Tories out in the Shires.

[Alf Bentley]

I'm not really sure how you'd define conservatism, pragmatic libertarianism and free market economics? I don't think nationalism is necessarily a right/left issue. There are a wide range of opinions in all political parties.

 

Good question. I'd say that both nationalism and conservatism can be right or left, depending on what other ideas they're associated with.

 

Given the power of big capital, I'd say that the more deregulated that free market economics becomes, the more right-wing it becomes in effect (redistributing wealth, power and opportunity from the poor to the rich). It's still possible to combine free market economics with leftish social policies and selective state intervention, though, as Leicsmac points out re. Scandinavia.

 

Pragmatic libertarianism sounds good to me, though I'm not sure exactly what it means. If it means a lot of decentralisation of power and wealth, and the state only intervening where strictly necessary or useful, it might get my vote... 

[Webbo]

Good question. I'd say that both nationalism and conservatism can be right or left, depending on what other ideas they're associated with.

 

Given the power of big capital, I'd say that the more deregulated that free market economics becomes, the more right-wing it becomes in effect (redistributing wealth, power and opportunity from the poor to the rich). It's still possible to combine free market economics with leftish social policies and selective state intervention, though, as Leicsmac points out re. Scandinavia.

 

Pragmatic libertarianism sounds good to me, though I'm not sure exactly what it means. If it means a lot of decentralisation of power and wealth, and the state only intervening where strictly necessary or useful, it might get my vote... 

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that.

[ADK]

Really, political parties can win elections if they can correctly identify the biggest issues facing the people who aren't the natural voter base of their opposition, and then craft coherent policies that offer solutions to those issues. Finally, they need to communicate those policies and explain how they will help whilst attempting to keep political debate focused around those areas.

 

It sounds simple but it is surprising how bad Labour have been at doing this. It needs good leadership (not just from 1 man) and a well organised party.

 

Lets be honest, 37% to 30% isn't an astronomical Tory lead. It doesn't indicate a united populace and there was essentially no swing between the Conservatives and the Labour party. The Tory party won their majority off the back of Lib Dem incompetence. 

 

63% of the voting public didn't want a conservative government, while there were probably non-voters available with the right message. Supposedly only 24% of registered voters supported the Tories. That leaves a lot of people to appeal to.

 

Labour's biggest problem is getting the people who don't vote Tory, the younger and lower socio-economic class voters to vote Labour. To present a genuine positive alternative to conservatism.

 

The biggest asset to the Tories are homeowners and the over 65's, both groups have gained a lot of unearned wealth as a result of conservatism and are essentially on the Tory payroll. Coupled with the "1%" who provide the wealth needed for campaigning.

 

Personally I would vote for a party that tried to do what is genuinely best for the country as a whole which is why I'm a natural Lib Dem, but in two-party politics, if you want to win you have to play dirty and favour certain groups. Ever since Thatcher, the Tories have done this better.

[Guest MattP]

Looks like the shy Tories have come out now they realise a lot of others are thinking the same. Yougov first poll gives them an 11 point lead, no wonder Chuka, Tristram and Dan didn't fancy this.

 

Despite all the statistics that were being thrown at people in the last two years as well now I think it's quite clear UKIP are eating into the Labour and Lib Dem vote as much as the Tory one, if not more.

 

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/3z9c86l8q0/SunResults_150526_W.pdf

 

Conservative 41%

Labour 30%

UKIP 13%

Lib Dem 7%

SNP 6%

Green 4%

[Guest MattP]

P.S Loving the new cameras at PMQ's, looks far better at eye level.

[Rincewind]

I know they never won many seats but I know a few people who voted Green because they thought Labour were similar to the Tory's as well as been said the LibDem shooting themselves in the foot. UKIP also took a few of the Labour support.  So  if there is a strong Labour leader that appeals to the disallusioned they may come back. It was the failure of Labour to win votes rather than the Torys changing peoples minds.

[MiniFox]

Looks like the shy Tories have come out now they realise a lot of others are thinking the same. Yougov first poll gives them an 11 point lead, no wonder Chuka, Tristram and Dan didn't fancy this.

 

Despite all the statistics that were being thrown at people in the last two years as well now I think it's quite clear UKIP are eating into the Labour and Lib Dem vote as much as the Tory one, if not more.

 

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/3z9c86l8q0/SunResults_150526_W.pdf

 

Conservative 41%

Labour 30%

UKIP 13%

Lib Dem 7%

SNP 6%

Green 4%

At the moment possibly, but after the EU referendum if we vote IN. a lot of Tory will probably move back to UKIP, it seems UKIP could have won more votes but Europe being such a big issue for them they saw this as a need to get out of Europe and ensure Labour do not win., UKIP voters filtered back into Tory. (the one who left in the first place)

 

For Labour the key over the next year is to get a leader and establish what they stand for early on, as said earlier on in this thread, many did not know what Labour stood for, the next year or so could be very important.

 

For Tory on the other hand if they manage to keep all their promises most of these voters will probably stay, particularly if Labour do not offer any real alternative.

 

Although, I'm sure earlier on in this thread you mentioned Labour having a similar lead back in 2012, which of course did not last.

[MiniFox]

I know they never won many seats but I know a few people who voted Green because they thought Labour were similar to the Tory's as well as been said the LibDem shooting themselves in the foot. UKIP also took a few of the Labour support.  So  if there is a strong Labour leader that appeals to the disallusioned they may come back. It was the failure of Labour to win votes rather than the Torys changing peoples minds.

Agree with that point in particular, the weakness of the opposition helped decide this last election, as I said above if Labour offer no real alternative and Tories keep their promises, these results will not change too much.

[Strokes]

Looks like the shy Tories have come out now they realise a lot of others are thinking the same. Yougov first poll gives them an 11 point lead, no wonder Chuka, Tristram and Dan didn't fancy this.

Despite all the statistics that were being thrown at people in the last two years as well now I think it's quite clear UKIP are eating into the Labour and Lib Dem vote as much as the Tory one, if not more.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/3z9c86l8q0/SunResults_150526_W.pdf

Conservative 41%

Labour 30%

UKIP 13%

Lib Dem 7%

SNP 6%

Green 4%

Cameron should call another election pronto, the would make significant gains

[Rincewind]

Maybe. The number  of people in a group on Facebook  page  I use saying they were voting Green SNP or even UKIP but wanted the Torys out was astounding. When I said it may allow the Tory's to get back in their response was to tell me not to to tell them how to vote.

I gave up.  Maybe we should have two elections everytime so the ones who voted for nobody's or not at all can do it right the second time instead of waiting five years  only to get who they never wanted again..

 

Just being silly. Ignore that.

[Guest MattP]

Following on from the previous page, is British socialism dying? A piece from the Commentator.

 

Last week, extreme left-wing protesters took to Westminster to show their fury at what the Daily Mirror described as ‘the most right-wing Queen’s Speech in a generation’.

 

I’ve written about the decline in socialist action on multiple occasions, but I think in light of events last week it’s worth going over what we are seeing, and reflecting on the fact that the far left truly is in decline, and that it's happening before our very eyes.

When the Conservatives took office in 2010, alongside the Liberal Democrats as coalition partners, the student-left (which probably comprises the biggest, or certainly the most active, grouping of leftist-protest movements) were organised and ready to agitate.

 

Staging countless demonstrations and even storming CCHQ in Millbank, the student- left (who were joined by large numbers of older socialists) seemed keen to take on British Conservatism.

At the time of the last set of major protests in response to the tuition fees increase, I was the campus Tory Chairman at Essex University. Let’s just say I wasn’t the most popular person at that time for supporting the government.

Coach-loads of students enthusiastically travelled up to Westminster to voice their anger, and the campus became a ghost town.

 

The reality now, however, paints quite a different picture. This is no surprise when one looks at the facts.

Reports now suggest that at University campuses across the country, countless radical-leftist movements lie in disarray and without members.

 

At the recent election, TUSC, the most obvious of the radical- left wing groups that bothered to stand for election, received a national total of just 36, 327 votes (0.1 percent of the vote). Put in to perspective, that’s just 1,710 more votes than John Bercow received in his seat of Buckingham.

 

There are also over 25 radical leftist political parties comprising groups like the ‘New Communist Party’, the ‘Revolutionary Communist Group’, the ‘Communist Party of Britain’, the ‘Communist Party of Britain (Marxist- Leninist)’ and the ‘Communist Party of Great Britain (Provisional Central Committee)' -- obviously.

In student politics, the NUS, who once were at the forefront of demonstrations, have rapidly cut off ties with extreme-left elements. Remaining socialists have come to brand one of their erstwhile safest fiefdoms as ‘right wing’, as a result of the predominantly ‘Labour Student’ make up of delegates.

 

Now, splinter radical Student Unions argue amongst themselves over niche issues like whether condemning ISIS is Islamophobic, or if the fight against 'oppression' should involve a blanket ban on men from attending political meetings.

This inability of the left to even stomach the enthusiasm to work together or champion issues that matter to everyday men and women indicates one obvious reality: they have lost their way, and no longer truly stand for anything meaningful.

The protests last week and shortly after polling day, although violent and thuggish, demonstrate the desperate lengths to which the far-left are having to go to get noticed.

 

From scribbling horrific graffiti on a national war memorial and attacking police officers to abusing UKIP’s Douglas Carswell -- pathetically screaming "fascist" at him -- in the street, the far-left are running out of ideas, and they know it.

The recent general election results only rubbed salt into an already fatal wound.

 

If the election showed anything, it is that hard working people are putting their trust in the Conservative Party. They see that the socialists only gain from the personal economic anxieties of others and that, as a movement, they have no genuine desire to make anyone better off.

 

For Conservatives, the road ahead from here is to keep on doing what Conservatives have always done best: govern.

With a clear mandate from the British electorate, it is time to get on with strengthening the economy and pushing for a better future for our hardest workers.

Unlike socialists, we have always strived to help those that truly want the best future for themselves and their family. That’s why this election, despite their best efforts, Labour lost. They lacked that vision and fell for their own classic trap: talking down to people about their problems, without offering a solution.

 

Now, Labour will have an internal fight on their hands to select their next leader. Will they accept that there is limited appetite amongst the electorate for socialism and move to the centre-ground, or vote for someone that still claims to offer the mystical, magic formula of electorally acceptable socialism?

This could be the very end of British socialism, certainly from within the world of electoral politics. Margaret Thatcher's dream of a Britain without socialism may soon become a reality.

 

 

 

Personally I wouldn't say it's dying, but it's certainly on it's knees, as Webbo has pointed it's now over ten years even before I was born that Britain elected a socialist government and every time Labour goes to the left no one wants to vote for them apart from the absolute die hards who would vote Labour if Jimmy Savile was leader. Maybe Socialism has just had it's day? In a modern World where the richest are the ones who can up themselves and move if you implement all sorts of wealth taxes and massive income tax rates you would have to think bankrupcy wouldn't be far off anyway.

[Frank to be]

Be good now little tories, work hard work hard work hard, give up more and more of your time and if you're lucky, I mean if you're really lucky, your wages will keep up with inflation. RPI that is. Your wages will never keep up with your rent, so forget that. But be good, work harder, it'll be worth it when you can retire at 75. A life well spent.