Labour Party leadership election 2015
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 03:43:04 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  International Elections (Moderators: afleitch, Hash)
  Labour Party leadership election 2015
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 19 20 21 22 23 [24] 25 26 27 28 29 ... 58
Author Topic: Labour Party leadership election 2015  (Read 138750 times)
politicus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,174
Denmark


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #575 on: August 01, 2015, 07:52:18 AM »
« edited: August 01, 2015, 10:01:11 AM by politicus »


What is SDA? The Social Democrats is shortened either simply as S or SAP, SDA sounds like it would be a radical wing of the Sweden Democrats. Wink

Well, I have been writing too much about Iceland. Sveriges Socialdemokratiska Arbetareparti might as well be SDA though (SA I suppose is out of the question for historical reasons Wink ). Shortening the Sweden Democrats to SD is always a bit confusing. SVD would sound more right wing, like the Swiss SVP.
Logged
Famous Mortimer
WillipsBrighton
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,010
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #576 on: August 01, 2015, 08:05:39 AM »

The problem looking at Corbyn is that he has the most baggage because he's got links to the weird peace school of socialism. I mean sure be against Iraq that's fair but he says we should leave NATO ideally, that Northern Ireland should be part of Ireland and that all military force is wrong. I mean this is the battles that Labour had in the 1950's.
I don't see anything wrong with those statements, and surely quite a number of Labour supporters do not either, or he would not be the front-runner in this.

It's not got much press, apart from a New Statesman article.

The problem is that this leadership debate is not really about policy, it's about how/what we want the party to be. If Corbyn is going to be beaten it's by saying that he's got a history of stupid positions. I mean Labour before Blair always at least pretended to be slight pro-military, I know the cold war was a different time but we still need to pretend that we can stand up for national interests

Can you link to the article? Corbyn is a pacifist?
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #577 on: August 01, 2015, 08:13:38 AM »

The problem is that this leadership debate is not really about policy, it's about how/what we want the party to be.

We'll some policy has come up, but just social policy (benefits and stuff) and (in a vague sense) some economic stuff. And on those issues even Corbyn The Backbencher is well within the Labour mainstream, let alone Corbyn The Candidate (as several people have noted the irony of this campaign is that the candidate who has modified and moderated his positions the most is... er... Corbyn). But, yes, the issue is that the things on which he has rather more... er... alternative views have not featured.
Logged
Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese
JOHN91043353
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,570
Sweden


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #578 on: August 01, 2015, 08:29:57 AM »


What is SDA? The Social Democrats is shortened either simply as S or SAP, SDA sounds like it would be a radical wing of the Sweden Democrats. Wink

Well, I have been writing too much about Iceland. Sveriges Socialdemokratiska Arbetareparti might as well be SDA though (SA I suppose SA is out of the question for historical reasons..). Shortening the Sweden Democrats to SD is always a bit confusing. SVD would sound more right wing, like the Swiss SVP.

S is never called Socialdemokratiska arbetarpartiet these days though, not even by their most pompous members. They're either referred to as Socialdemokraterna (formal) or Sossarna (informal). Even on the ballot, they're named Arbetarpartiet Socialdemokraterna, which I guess could give you ASD   

I guess we're sort of derailing this thread though. We should probably continue this discussion in the Swedish General Discussion. Wink



I can't believe we're being criticized for illogical and hard short forms from someone who lives in a country were they shorten Dansk Folkeparti to O. Wink
Logged
Leftbehind
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,639
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #579 on: August 01, 2015, 08:55:28 AM »
« Edited: August 01, 2015, 08:58:24 AM by Acting like I'm Morrissey w/o the wit »

The problem is that this leadership debate is not really about policy, it's about how/what we want the party to be.

We'll some policy has come up, but just social policy (benefits and stuff) and (in a vague sense) some economic stuff. And on those issues even Corbyn The Backbencher is well within the Labour mainstream, let alone Corbyn The Candidate (as several people have noted the irony of this campaign is that the candidate who has modified and moderated his positions the most is... er... Corbyn). But, yes, the issue is that the things on which he has rather more... er... alternative views have not featured.

He can simply argue (like Benn did) quite correctly that he's simply a conduit of the party, it's not just about what he personally supports, but what the party have voted for - and they've voted for the stuff he's campaigned on*. It's about democracy (and I imagine one of his first movements will to be reinstate a lot of that within the party), and the Labour movement, not President Corbyn's thoughts. He's already done this with his republicanism. He knows monarchist sentiment is too strong, so it's not a hill he's going to die on. Similarly, he's arguing for a conditional support of EU because he knows to campaign, like Benn, to leave would see threaten his support within the party.

*Unilateral nuclear disarmament, a raft of nationalisations, removal of any private involvement in education and the NHS, higher taxes on business and the wealthy, rent caps, the return of council housing in force etc
Logged
Leftbehind
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,639
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #580 on: August 01, 2015, 09:09:02 AM »

Bizarre how many articles there are about Corbyn's supposed sex appeal based entirely off a couple of comments off Mumsnet.

Also McTernan, Chukka, Blair, Mann et al get to sound off about Corbyn and their supporters, but Burnham jumps in to warn of Dave Ward's language splitting the party!
Logged
ChrisDR68
PoshPaws68
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 395
United Kingdom
WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #581 on: August 01, 2015, 09:26:18 AM »
« Edited: August 01, 2015, 09:29:50 AM by ChrisDR68 »

*Unilateral nuclear disarmament, a raft of nationalisations, removal of any private involvement in education and the NHS, higher taxes on business and the wealthy, rent caps, the return of council housing in force etc

The party tried to convince the public on those policies not just in 1983 but in 1987 as well. Both times it resulted in a three figure Conservative majority despite the mass unemployment of the time.

There is a majority middle class in the UK and they're likely to be afraid of being soaked in tax to pay for a lot of that wish list. The British are also a broadly patriotic bunch so the CND approach to the defence issue is also likely to be unpopular with voters despite the end of the cold war.

Relying on your possible and potential enemies being nice to you will probably be seen to be a bit of a hostage to fortune by the electorate.
Logged
Leftbehind
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,639
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #582 on: August 01, 2015, 09:36:27 AM »
« Edited: August 01, 2015, 09:38:54 AM by Acting like I'm Morrissey w/o the wit »

Nationalisations and housing construction will actually save money (it's why they recieve overwhelming public support). Rent caps cost nothing. If you think the majority pay corporation tax or high-rate income tax then I'm wasting my time here.

Any nuclear bombing of the UK (the only time you'd actually need them) would automatically involve mainland Europe (which is why Canada and Germany are not seen as some sitting ducks).
Logged
Phony Moderate
Obamaisdabest
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,298
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #583 on: August 01, 2015, 09:39:42 AM »

The electorate isn't necessarily always right, though. Most here will favour gay marriage. California of course voted to ban gay marriage just seven years ago; views have dramatically changed since then, partly due to generational shifts but also due to effective arguments and persuasion by the pro-gay marriage side.
Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,192
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #584 on: August 01, 2015, 09:41:28 AM »

I don't think the CND argument is necessarily a losing one, if it is framed as a matter of cost and pragmatism rather than morality. It is hard to doubt the missils are a bit of a vanity project on our part.

Removal of all private involvement in education would be very much an unpopular prospect, especially in your average swing seat. Maybe something less radical, like threatening to take non-profit status from them and capping their fees?

I think it's quite likely the next labour platform will endorse rail nationalisation, a break-up of the big energy markets, a minimum wage hike and maybe a bump in corp. tax. Hopefully they get a better wealth tax than the mansion tax though. Possibly we will see a revival of windfall tax.
Logged
ChrisDR68
PoshPaws68
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 395
United Kingdom
WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #585 on: August 01, 2015, 09:56:20 AM »

Nationalisations and housing construction will actually save money (it's why they recieve overwhelming public support). Rent caps cost nothing. If you think the majority pay corporation tax or high-rate income tax then I'm wasting my time here.

Any nuclear bombing of the UK (the only time you'd actually need them) would automatically involve mainland Europe (which is why Canada and Germany are not seen as some sitting ducks).

Of course not but perception is king in politics.

The Conservatives banged on about Labour causing the financial mess the country was in at the end of their period of office and the public largely agreed with that assessment.

Personally I think about 70% of the financial crisis lies squarely on the shoulders of banks themselves but Brown also failed in his regulation of them which made matters much worse.

If Labour is led by Corbyn in the 2020 general election you can bet your bottom dollar they will bang on about a hike in tax for most people to pay of their proposed policies however much Labour denied that would be the case.

Quite similar to what happened during the 1992 general election in fact.
Logged
Leftbehind
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,639
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #586 on: August 01, 2015, 10:03:43 AM »
« Edited: August 01, 2015, 10:07:12 AM by Acting like I'm Morrissey w/o the wit »

The electorate isn't necessarily always right, though. Most here will favour gay marriage. California of course voted to ban gay marriage just seven years ago; views have dramatically changed since then, partly due to generational shifts but also due to effective arguments and persuasion by the pro-gay marriage side.

Well firstly I don't know how much stock we should put in the fact that a different platform lost in a different era. Secondly, Labour were crucified during the 1980's because of a right-wing split. Unless that repeats itself with just as much effect then, again, we're comparing apples and oranges. Lastly there are a number of things that were seen as politically unviable for the Tories to do, because of the overwhelming opposition, and they've done it on each (thanks in large part to the Lib Dems for giving them an unearned supermajority and free reign to do as they pleased). As you say, these things change through action and persuasion, not to write them off as impossibilities and then wring our hands as "we didn't do enough" after 13 years in stasis.

Of course not but perception is king in politics.

The Conservatives banged on about Labour causing the financial mess the country was in at the end of their period of office and the public largely agreed with that assessment.

Personally I think about 70% of the financial crisis lies squarely on the shoulders of banks themselves but Brown also failed in his regulation of them which made matters much worse.

If Labour is led by Corbyn in the 2020 general election you can bet your bottom dollar they will bang on about a hike in tax for most people to pay of their proposed policies however much Labour denied that would be the case.

Quite similar to what happened during the 1992 general election in fact.

Your own analysis has Labour at some blame for the banking crisis, demonstrating how easy it was to blame Labour for it. It's completely different convincing people that they're paying taxes that they're not paying. "Are you a corporation?", "do you earn over 150K a year?". Two simple questions showing exactly who will be paying both. When majorities polled support higher taxes on the wealthy that's exactly who they have in mind.

It'd be quite ironic for the Tories to use the same tactic as 1992, given they've a) raised taxes on ordinary people (VAT), b) lied about not doing so, c) claimed it was imperative they done so, d) lowered taxes for the rich (top-rate, inheritance, corporation).
Logged
ChrisDR68
PoshPaws68
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 395
United Kingdom
WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #587 on: August 01, 2015, 10:43:35 AM »

Your own analysis has Labour at some blame for the banking crisis, demonstrating how easy it was to blame Labour for it. It's completely different convincing people that they're paying taxes that they're not paying. "Are you a corporation?", "do you earn over 150K a year?". Two simple questions showing exactly who will be paying both. When majorities polled support higher taxes on the wealthy that's exactly who they have in mind.

It'd be quite ironic for the Tories to use the same tactic as 1992, given they've a) raised taxes on ordinary people (VAT), b) lied about not doing so, c) claimed it was imperative they done so, d) lowered taxes for the rich (top-rate, inheritance, corporation).

Does that mean you don't regard Gordon Brown to be at least partly responsible for what happened during the financial crisis?

On the general issue of personal taxation the bar is set lower for the Conservatives as their general philosophy is to try and keep taxes as low as possible. They may fail to do so in practice a lot of the time but their instincts are for a low tax small state economy.

The Labour Party's instincts are largely in the opposite direction.

You may say that's unfair but it's the way it is in British politics which is why Labour are usually on the defensive on this issue.

Logged
Leftbehind
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,639
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #588 on: August 01, 2015, 10:57:49 AM »

Does that mean you don't regard Gordon Brown to be at least partly responsible for what happened during the financial crisis?

No, I'm saying it simply isn't as black and white a picture as is the question who will be paying more tax.

On the general issue of personal taxation the bar is set lower for the Conservatives as their general philosophy is to try and keep taxes as low as possible. They may fail to do so in practice a lot of the time but their instincts are for a low tax small state economy.

The Labour Party's instincts are largely in the opposite direction.

You may say that's unfair but it's the way it is in British politics which is why Labour are usually on the defensive on this issue.

I'm not saying it's unfair, I'm saying it's easily rebutted. You're suggesting the Tories main attack line, and something they would be victorious from, would be a) something that they had demonstrably done themselves & couldn't be easily pointed out b) unanswerable, because Labour would be somehow unable to convince the electorate that when they say the top-rate & corporation tax would go up that it wouldn't be all taxes for all people. I don't buy it.  
Logged
Blair
Blair2015
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,816
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #589 on: August 01, 2015, 11:33:48 AM »

The problem looking at Corbyn is that he has the most baggage because he's got links to the weird peace school of socialism. I mean sure be against Iraq that's fair but he says we should leave NATO ideally, that Northern Ireland should be part of Ireland and that all military force is wrong. I mean this is the battles that Labour had in the 1950's.
I don't see anything wrong with those statements, and surely quite a number of Labour supporters do not either, or he would not be the front-runner in this.

It's not got much press, apart from a New Statesman article.

The problem is that this leadership debate is not really about policy, it's about how/what we want the party to be. If Corbyn is going to be beaten it's by saying that he's got a history of stupid positions. I mean Labour before Blair always at least pretended to be slight pro-military, I know the cold war was a different time but we still need to pretend that we can stand up for national interests

Can you link to the article? Corbyn is a pacifist?

At a hustings I went to in London he called for us 'to be a party of peace'

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/07/jeremy-corbyn-interview-i-think-we-have-think-terms-disillusioned-who-didn-t-vote

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

The problem is that this leadership debate is not really about policy, it's about how/what we want the party to be.

We'll some policy has come up, but just social policy (benefits and stuff) and (in a vague sense) some economic stuff. And on those issues even Corbyn The Backbencher is well within the Labour mainstream, let alone Corbyn The Candidate (as several people have noted the irony of this campaign is that the candidate who has modified and moderated his positions the most is... er... Corbyn). But, yes, the issue is that the things on which he has rather more... er... alternative views have not featured.

That's the problem, the media can literally take his comments on Ireland, NATO, Milosevic and the royal family and spin it into an absolute fury.

On the plus side, Andy Burnham has one another well powerful endorsement, The women Gordon Brown called a bigot
Logged
Blair
Blair2015
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,816
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #590 on: August 01, 2015, 11:37:19 AM »

On wider points it probably makes me a new labour hack to say this but even if people agree with Labour policies on housing, nuclear weapons and rail they will face the problem the tories had 2005-people agreed with the policy but disagree with the party. The tories would play out the 2015 election on max, it would be a complete assault on Labour being weak on defence and about to tax you to the max.

As I said above, Corbyn's problem is being attached to the old left that seemed to attack all western foreign policy as 'evil and imperialist'. We need to be a party of government
Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,192
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #591 on: August 01, 2015, 11:50:26 AM »

Oh please, promises to withdraw from NATO are dime a dozen on the left, but most ditch as soon as they want, y'know, power.
Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,192
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #592 on: August 01, 2015, 11:52:33 AM »

In addition the bigoted women, Burnham also won the key endorsement of Abby the milifandom leader. She was immediately barraged with abuse from Corbynites.
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #593 on: August 01, 2015, 12:29:26 PM »

For those of us not familiar with Labour party constitution how can be dumped by boxing day? can the PLP declare an election by its own?

I'm not an expert on Party procedure (and the rules were recently changed so I may be out of date on some details), but the PLP has no power to void a leadership election. What it does have is the power to call a new one provided that a fifth of the PLP (this figure may have changed, but it certainly used to be a fifth) nominate a given candidate. I'm not sure whether the election process would then kick off as if there were a vacancy or if the timetable would be instead automatically linked to Conference. The incumbent would, however, have the right to run again. Or to put things differently: no, if Corbyn wins the PLP can't dump him by Boxing Day by procedural means. Forcing a resignation might be a different matter and one not governed by procedure. It would be for the best if (not matter what happens) things don't get that nasty...
Logged
Famous Mortimer
WillipsBrighton
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,010
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #594 on: August 01, 2015, 12:38:52 PM »

In addition the bigoted women, Burnham also won the key endorsement of Abby the milifandom leader. She was immediately barraged with abuse from Corbynites.

I read her endorsement. It was very measured and nice. She picked Burnham but said Corbyn was her second choice and she would be happy if he won. Basically my REAL position if I was thinking only of policy rather than trying to make a statement.
Logged
Blair
Blair2015
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,816
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #595 on: August 01, 2015, 12:56:12 PM »

She even said in her endorsement that she's 2nd Corbyn, but that we shouldn't call anyone red tories because they're to the right of Corbyn.

I can't work out if it's just the far left, green, TUSC group but there's a rise in the whole 'red tory' rhetoric being thrown at people who are quite frankly on the soft left. Seems familiar to the whole RINO obsession that hit the GOP
Logged
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 67,609
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #596 on: August 01, 2015, 01:00:18 PM »

It's worth noting that the driving issues behind previous bouts of really vicious factionalism in Labour have invariably been over foreign and defence policy. Debates about other things have generally been less toxic even when there have been sharp differences (and sometimes when they haven't been it was - partly - because they were linked to those more contentious issues: this was the case with the rows over Clause IV in the early 1960s).* So... to strike a cautiously - and quite possibly probably unduly, who knows - optimistic note, I would draw attention to the fact that Corbyn is not running on his (very very left-wing) stances on foreign and defence policy and has even tried to play them down at times during the campaign. And this is the case with the wider (newly energised) Labour Left as well, particularly at the younger end of it. Which might (maybe, hopefully, God willing) mean that any oncoming factional brutality - because there's going to be at least a little bit no matter what happens - is less extensive than has been the case in the past.

*And also, bluntly, most ordinary Labour Moderates have not historically been/are not now exactly what you'd call centrist on social policy or economics... even the opposition to widespread nationalisation which spread out from the PLP into the Right elements of the CLPs was a matter of practical politics.
Logged
Dan the Roman
liberalrepublican
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,458
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #597 on: August 01, 2015, 02:34:49 PM »

On wider points it probably makes me a new labour hack to say this but even if people agree with Labour policies on housing, nuclear weapons and rail they will face the problem the tories had 2005-people agreed with the policy but disagree with the party. The tories would play out the 2015 election on max, it would be a complete assault on Labour being weak on defence and about to tax you to the max.

As I said above, Corbyn's problem is being attached to the old left that seemed to attack all western foreign policy as 'evil and imperialist'. We need to be a party of government

His problem is that it will be the only thing an election is about. Labour will be lucky to get a word in about their actual policies in 2020. It will be about how Labour is led by a self-loathing, anti-white, anti-semitic, terrorist-supporting, lunatic, with his lines on migration, colonialism, the monarchy, the IRA, and Israel dug up and presented. And even during this campaign he has embraced some of them - ie. his Balfour declaration comments.

What he is trying to do(stake out ground to the left of the electorate on economics) can only be done by someone solid enough elsewhere that the topic can't be changed. That is not the case with Corbyn.
Logged
Blair
Blair2015
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,816
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #598 on: August 01, 2015, 03:19:08 PM »

The factionalism is going to be bad because the PLP is heavily 'moderniser' whilst the membership has become more left wing due to Ed pushing the party to the left and also labour becoming the opposition.

It's interesting that 10 years ago it was Brownite v Blairite, now it's New Labour v Old
Logged
Silent Hunter
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,308
United Kingdom


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #599 on: August 01, 2015, 03:44:13 PM »

Personally, I don't know what's worse for the party; Corbyn winning or Corbyn losing.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 19 20 21 22 23 [24] 25 26 27 28 29 ... 58  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.069 seconds with 12 queries.