Labour Party leadership election 2015

[ChrisDR68]

As a member of the 'Milifandon' Miliband had a clear left wing stance, and this revisionist claptrap that we didn't offer enough in 2015 has already started-I've seen the mantra that Miliband was held back by the Blairites but let's look at what we were offering- An elected House of Lords, increased Bank Levy,  regional investment banks, 50p tax rate, mansion tax, getting rid of non doms, a joined up health and social care, cutting tuition fees to 6,000 and so on. It was actually quite a big package of reform

I don't think Ed lost because of the policies he was advocating, he lost because he was personally unpopular and was seen by the public as the "wrong brother".

[ChrisDR68]

So considering the controversies regarding this leadership election what does everyone think will be the changes made in time for the next one?

[ChrisDR68]

Some interesting figures; 22% of Britons say they are against the Royals; that must be the highest for some time; higher even than opposition to airstrikes against ISIS. Also, surely tuition fees aren't tuition fees if paid entirely by the government? Also, lol at a large proportion of Kendall supporters who strongly hold positions that would put them in the Socialist Campaign Group if they were MPs.

Obviously this doesn't prove anything either way but you can certainly see the potential for a Corbyn led Labour Party bumping up against the Great British public at the general election in 2020 and coming away with a drubbing.

[ChrisDR68]

Yeah the data I've seen shows that Corbyn will probably win on the first round but only with about 35%, meaning that Burnham has a good chance of coming back. Funnily enough we looked and 1 out of 16 Kendall voters have put Corbyn as there 2... make of that what you will haha

If Corbyn only gets up to around the 35-40% mark after the first round (which would surprise me after all the hoopla surrounding him) it looks somewhat doubtful he will end up winning.

Will each round of voting be announced and then a gap while the second preferences of the eliminated candidate are redistributed amongst those remaining?

[ChrisDR68]

Some of the policies of the Wilson government in 1964 were quite left wing though. Remember the Department For Economic Affairs? This initiated Labour's 5 year plan for the British economy (slightly akin to the Soviet Union's 5 year plans of the 30's and 40's).

This was meant to herald the beginning of a planned socialist economy in the UK. The government was soon blown off course with this policy due to the overvalued pound which Wilson and Callaghan foolishly tried to prop up with deflationary policies (similar to John Major in 1991 and 1992) and was abandoned altogether with the devaluation crisis of 1967.

In 1969 the department was quietly wound up never to be heard of again.

Incidentally Wilson had the reputation as a left winger but he had been a Liberal when at university and according to Brian Walden in this excellent tv programme from 1997 he was never really anything else ideologically:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvvW8eP1AAs

The video is of poor quality but the audio is fine

[ChrisDR68]

Normally I disagree with the stuff Owen Jones writes but this article is quite thoughtful:

https://medium.com/@OwenJones84/my-honest-thoughts-on-the-corbyn-campaign-and-overcoming-formidable-obstacles-de81d4449884

This paragraph stood out for me:

The current internal schism within the Labour Party is partly the product of our electoral system. In other democracies, there are often two left parties — one ‘centre-left’, the other more radical. They compete against each other but frequently form governing coalitions together.

In Britain, they are in the same party. ‘First-past-the-post’ is increasingly untenable as a system because of the political fragmentation resulting from fragmentation in wider society — because of changes like de-industrialisation, a more transient workforce, immigration, people moving more, an ageing population, and so on. Having broad ‘left’ and ‘right’ coalitions fighting elections under the same banner seems to make less and less sense, but the electoral system compels it to be so.

It would be more honest (in my opinion) if you had a moderate social democratic party and a separate Marxist socialist party. As explained above though the FPTP system means that the left are forced to accommodate each other within the same party which creates the endless tensions and even hatreds we're all familiar with.

[ChrisDR68]

I'm not so sure. It is 2015. A lot could happen in five years and the Tories won't get more popular in office. Labour winning the 2020 general election doesn't have to be a pipe dream.

But they were more popular in 2015 than 2010 (36.9% to 36.0%) against all expectations and while in office too.

If the lack of economic credibility was the deciding factor in 2015 (personally I think it was Ed Miliband's leadership that sunk Labour in the recent general election), then electing Jeremy Corbyn would seem to be the opposite of what the party should do if it seriously wants to win next time.

[ChrisDR68]

Further fun fact; we got a lower share of the vote in the last two elections than the Tories did in 1997.

And the Tories in both 2015 and 2010 won fewer total votes than Callaghan in 1979 and Kinnock in 1992.

That's a fun fact!

That's all to do with turnout.

In 1979 it was 76%
In 1992 it was 78%

In 2010 it was 65%
In 2015 it was 66%

What really matters in British general elections is the gap between the two major parties in the popular vote. When looked at in this way the Tories were very unlucky not to win an overall majority in 2010 with a gap of 7.1% between themselves and Labour considering that same gap narrowed to 6.5% in 2015.

The reason they didn't get a majority that year was because of the large number of Liberal Democrat MP's. When they disappeared they ended up (almost by default) with a small majority.

[ChrisDR68]

Watch Shirley Williams in this clip from 0:38 (after losing her seat in 1979): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b20Td5fFoTs

Basically she is saying that the voters were mistaken and selfish in their decision; refreshingly honest and a far cry from many of today's modernisers.

The presenter looks like he should be fronting an Open University programme

1979 was all about the Winter Of Discontent and Callaghan's mishandling of his 5% incomes policy coupled with a couple of weak and irresponsible union leaders such as Moss Evans. It was nothing to do with voters being selfish.

[ChrisDR68]

Because today's politicians are terrified of anything they say being brought up again and again by their opponents (such as the note left in treasury by the outgoing Labour government in 2010 about there being no money left which Cameron used again and again in the recent general election).

1979 is interesting as Callaghan could (and probably would) have won had he called an election in October 1978. He also probably would have won had his government not lost the vote of confidence in March 1979 by one vote and soldiered on until September/October 1979.

The only way Maggie Thatcher could have won was the (pretty unlikely) way it actually happened in the otl and as we all know the ramifications of that election result has been enormous and ever lasting for the UK.

That must have haunted Callaghan for the rest of his days.

[ChrisDR68]

Ok if we're doing predictions here's mine:

1st round:

Corbyn 41%
Burnham 25%
Cooper 21%
Kendall 13%

2nd round:

Corbyn 43%
Cooper 30%
Burnham 27%

3rd round:

Corbyn 61%
Cooper 39%

My guess is that a big majority of Burnham supporters will have Corbyn as their second preference and that's what will nail it for Comrade Corbyn.

[ChrisDR68]

Interesting piece in today's Guardian from Michael Ashcroft polling about why Labour lost in this year general election. Apparently his findings seem to suggest Tony Blair is not as unpopular with Labour voters as a lot on the left seem to think he is:

The polling also shows that those in the Labour electorate who regard Tony Blair as source of shame rather than pride are in the minority. Writing in the Guardian, Ashcroft suggests: “Loyalists as well as defectors to other parties (especially the Conservatives) regard Tony Blair as the best Labour leader for 30 years, as do voters as whole.”

While loyalists and defectors overall both said John Smith, the Labour leader in the mid-90s, did a better job at standing up for the party’s values, both groups put Blair ahead of Smith, Neil Kinnock, Gordon Brown and Miliband on representing the whole country, appealing beyond traditional Labour voters and offering strong, competent leadership.

Corbyn has prioritised denouncing the British invasion of Iraq, saying he will formally apologise on behalf of the Labour party. Many in the Corbyn campaign have argued that a new winning coalition can be formed of radicals in Scotland, former Green voters, disillusioned Ukip voters and those who otherwise do not vote.

Ashcroft argues that Labour needs to win back some of the voters it lost to the Conservatives if it is to have a hope of winning in 2020.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/sep/10/labour-loyalists-put-principles-before-power-ashcroft-poll

Blair's critics are certainly loud and strident in their views but they apparently are also in a minority

[ChrisDR68]

Someone who talks about radicals of scotland when talking about the snp cannot be taken seriously

Watched a very interesting edition of Booktalk on BBC Parliament recently which stated that the Scots are in fact very, very similar in how big they want the state to be, the size and scope of the welfare safety net and how much redistribution there should be in the UK.

The reason the three Westminster parties have been rejected by the Scots seems to be more to do with them all being perceived as broadly English parties leaving the way clear for the SNP wipeout in this years general election.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b051jqfl/booktalk-philip-cowley-and-robert-ford

I've also found the preview of the book about this subject. Go to chapter 20 "The Myth Of The Meritocratic Scotland". Well worth a read

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=o8oPBQAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=inauthor:%22Daniel+Finkelstein%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDoQuwUwBGoVChMIntO6z5TtxwIVpmnbCh2ntQ54#v=onepage&q&f=false

[ChrisDR68]

Many in the Corbyn campaign have argued that a new winning coalition can be formed of radicals in Scotland, former Green voters, disillusioned Ukip voters and those who otherwise do not vote.

Is this real? Do they actually think this? Jesus christ.

It's very seductive to imagine that you don't need nasty Tory voters to win an election.

That was idiot Ed's strategy from 2010-2015.

[ChrisDR68]

The ramifications of that awful decision made by the electoral college in 2010 of electing Ed Miliband as leader keep right on coming.

If Corbyn leads Labour into the 2020 general election I predict a Conservative majority of between 70 and 110 with the party's popular vote below the 27.6% Michael Foot achieved in 1983.

[ChrisDR68]

For anyone who lived through the 1980's (and most of the 1990's for that matter), I suspect the next few years are going to feel very, very familiar...

[ChrisDR68]

If Corbyn remains Labour leader going into the 2020 elections, this will be very interesting.

If that happens, Tories will be picking up blood red Labour seats while winning a Thatcher-sized majority.  Labour would end up with about 150-175 seats.

I agree with the first two points but Corbyn's Labour Party will probably win a few more seats than this. Likely to be in the 190-210 area due to the party's entrenched position in much of inner city and urban England and Wales.

You can already anticipate the complaint's about the right wing media and gullible electorate when this experiment inevitably comes crashing down in flames.

These people will still be unrepentant though just like they were in 1983 and 1987 (and to a lesser extent in 1992 and 2015).

[ChrisDR68]

Why are the Tories demonizing Corbyn so viciously, as if they were right before, rather than after, a general election? Do they really believe this is somehow "necessary" already or are they just permanently stuck in campaign mode? Siting back and letting his perceived extremism speak for itself would strike me as a more sympathetic strategy and less prone to backfiring.

It's canny political strategy.

After the 2010 general elections but before Ed Miliband became leader the Tories repeated again and again and again that the financial mess they inherited was all Labour's doing and that they overspent and maxed out the nation's credit card when economic growth was strong.

Foolishly Miliband opted not to counter these charges (whether they had some substance in them or not) and they were largely accepted by the public. Those sentiments and Miliband's leadership were the issues that largely decided the 2015 general election.

Paint Corbyn as a dangerous loon now and repeat it often enough they hope the same thing will happen in the minds of the electorate again in 2020.

[ChrisDR68]

Interesting the way Corbyn applauded the audience at the TUC conference today who were applauding him politburo communist style.

[ChrisDR68]

Well I have some affection for Twiggy - he's a local boy, went to my primary school in fact. And T Hunt was a marvellous piece of satire, I assume by some method comedian.

Satire because he's posh?

Why wasn't the same attitude prevalent towards Anthony Wedgwood Benn who's father was a Liberal MP and who grandfather was Sir John Benn, 1st Baronet?

Or is it more to do with his name being Tristram?

[ChrisDR68]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11867337/Jeremy-Corbyn-disloyal-national-anthem-Labour-leader.html

Even if there is a campaign against him, he's not exactly making it harder for his opponents...

He's a republican isn't he?

That being the case I actually think he'd be hypocritical singing the anthem.

[ChrisDR68]

As the Labour leadership election is now over how about locking this thread off and starting a new one named Corbynwatch?

Whatever you think about Jeremy Corbyn the press are going to absolutely love him and will be ferocious attack dogs at anything he says or does that they don't agree with.

If nothing else it won't be boring
 

[ChrisDR68]

Full list of frontbenchers

Much of interest there, therefore more comments later. Two things to note very quickly: the general theme set by the ShadCab posts is reinforced (i.e. an overall soft Left kind of feel with the key word being overall: this is a clear attempt at a 'coalition' frontbench; these are not the appointments of a man setting out to start a factional war), and also the clear right-wing lean of the junior Defence posts.

Can you explain the difference in policy terms between the soft left and hard left?

It was always said Neil Kinnock was soft left but in terms of the policies he believed in (and fought for in the 1987 general election) he seemed to be little different from Michael Foot or even Tony Benn.

[ChrisDR68]

New poll makes grim (if predictable) reading for Corbyn fans:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-loses-fifth-of-labour-voters-with-critics-already-plotting-to-oust-him-10508584.html

28% think Corbyn is prime minister material... 72% do not.

If Labour does indeed lose 20% of it's voters that would put the party down at about 24 1/2% of the popular vote. Overall Labour looks less electable to 59% and more electable to 41% of the survey's respondents compared to May this year.

On the plus side the party could see it's popularity revive in Scotland with Corbyn as leader with 36% of SNP voters considering switching back to Labour.