Labour Party leadership election 2015

[Blair]

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/08/blair-and-brown-invented-monster-frighten-voters-old-labour-now-it-s-fighting-back

Stephen Bush is one of the best labour writers out there

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I've cast my vote. I did not use all of my preferences. I've also voted in the other contests.

(IIRC even Foot was an establishment left winger in the mould of Miliband)

Foot was very left wing; another Wilson he was not. But in the weird environment of the Labour Party in the early 80s he was functionally fairly moderate as he was culturally out of step - as were other Left figures of the older generation like Ian Mikardo or Renée Short - with the tactics and political tone of the dominant tendencies within the Left.

[Phony Moderate]

What percentage of the eventual total vote will have already been cast? Most postal votes in general elections apparently get sent back within a couple of days.

[Silent Hunter]

Has anyone here read A Very British Coup? I'm reading it at the moment.

[Simfan34]

Has anyone here read A Very British Coup? I'm reading it at the moment.

I saw the movie.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The TV adaptation is better than the book, though that's no slur on the book.

[Blair]

I've cast my vote. I did not use all of my preferences. I've also voted in the other contests.

It's always exciting being able to vote for the conference committee!

Hell will freeze over before it happens but I'd love to see the reaction from Corbyn supporters if Kendall beat say Burnham due to the boast of 'no 2nd preference' from corbyn voters.

I think I watched a British Coup about 4 years ago on Gold at about 7 in the morning before I had any understanding of politics beyond Britain=Good

[Leftbehind]

Sorry but the idea that Labour lost the 1983 election due to the SDP and the Falklands War is absolute nonsense. Analysis (see Appendix) of second preferences showed that Liberal/SDP voters were more likely to favour Thatcher's Conservatives than Labour in 1983 (43% to 36%). Let that sink in more a moment.

You speak as if that's some great "aha!" revalation: the Alliance voters were always likely to favour the Tories, being a party of liberals. It actually speaks to the SDP vote that the Tories only had a 7% lead in that constituent. "Absolute nonsense" - what's that there, oh it's a polling graph showing nosedives and astronomical recovery tht just so happens are timed with two events.

If the SDP had never happened, it's likely that Labour's defeat would have been even worse - as middle class voters who opted for the SDP in 1983 would have gone for Thatcher instead.

What? Thatcher's recovery was built upon those that flirted with the SDP to return to the Tory fold. The Alliance surge in the end was overwhelmingly from formally Labour-inclined voters.

The Conservatives were recovering in the polls before the Falklands War, as the temporary surge of the Alliance due to by-election victories inevitably slid away and the economy began to recover. There's a reason that Thatcher called the election in 1983 and not in 1984 - she knew she was going to win.  I think that Labour could have done slightly better if the War had never happened - but in this case Thatcher would have delayed the election a year, and with the economy in good shape, it's likely the result would have been similar.

Plenty of governments have seen their economy recover only to be booted out (think of one?), Thatcher seen her popularity - thanks to the Falklands - rocket to the highest levels it'd been since she formed her government and that her opposition was at its worst - hopelessly divided. But you're right 1980-1983 was famed for its economic miracle(!)

Polls mid-Parliament are always a referendum on the current government and not an accurate reflection of voting choices. Thatcher's government was very unpopular, but when it came to voting, many felt there was no alternative. Polls always move back towards the government towards the election...otherwise Mr. Miliband would be Prime Minister now (even assuming that the final polls were off to the same degree!).

Well thanks for stating the obvious re discontent with the government shapes mid-term elections, as things get closer government support tends to strengthen, but the fact of the matter is that there was nothing inevitable about Thatcher's win, she only recieved low fourties for all your TINA assertions and two events more so than anything else caused it.

Miliband had lost his lead long before the election - they were predicting a hung parliament. Labour vote turnout come election day ensured they didn't even get that. Who knew the "limited offer" could depress enthusiasm?

Labour won just 27% in 1983. Labour were still blamed for the Winter of Discontent and trade union militancy. The Bennite insurgency of 1979-81 completely destroyed the constitutional balance in the Party and left the Party a shambles - who could possibly vote for a Labour leadership that couldn't control its own Party, let alone the country?

Labour were leading the polls in 1980, so for their WoD legacy was clearly preferred to Thatcher's Britain (as you admit, she was very unpopular) but a campaign (albeit a bitter one) for greater democracy is not an "insurgency". Nor was the "constitutional balance", some God given right. As SDP shown, a lot of those people would not be elected without Labour voters and if they can't bear to represent them the moment the Left control the party then - and break off, then it was they who left the party a shambles. It's quite a convenient trick that - cause a major break away of the Right that steals votes from Labour and then blame the Left for a poor result, and how "that way can't win".

 

Labour lost the election well before the Limehouse Declaration and the Falklands War.

As I say, assertions betrayed by polling.

Burnham hasn't ran the best campaign but his tactics of recent days are probably clever; he could well win quite a few soft Corbynites over.

He's re-won my second preference, after a few backs retracting his statement that Corbyn would have a place in his cabinet in stereotypical Burnham fashion. I've seen mention of Indecisive Dave and it's hilariously on point.

If Labour don't take this opportunity to elect it's first woman leader Lord alone knows when they ever will

Kinda funny to see the Blairites highlighting this now, I can't remember them pushing for Dianne?

Agreed that it's going to be a complete bloodbath when he's elected. The Conservative press are going to rip him to shreds every week. Listening to him on World at One, it's clear that he has a thin skin and is easily rattled, so expect some memorable car crash interviews. Every policy he tries to announce will be immediately denounced by all the grandees of the Labour Right (Chuka Umunna and Tristram Hunt have already formed a splinter group). The Left will become defensive and paranoid, and the Party will collapse further into in-fighting. Given Corbyn's evident lack of passion for holding the position of leader, I wouldn't be surprised if he resigns after a few months, leading to another contest. The Left will cry betrayal and they'll probably be mass defections to the Greens.

He'll probably get the party reforms through so that even if he is hobbled by a mutinous right-wing PLP and the press have reduced his standing to toxic he can stand down knowing with party support he'll get a left-wing platform anyway without the headache. He's made it very plain that this is a "we" / movement effort, and he is just one person in that.
 

Ohnoes! If we elect somebody vaguely left-wing and willing to believe in a few things and change a few things, the evil right-wing media and politicians will destroy him in the media and in politics!

Unprecedented cuts! Beaten by Osborne on the Living Wage! Tuition reduced to 20K! Instinctively rules out nationalisations! It does make me laugh how convenient it has become to portray Miliband as a rejected left-winger (you'll no doubt stick one of the architects of New Labour in there as well?)

Corbyn has beliefs, right, but they're nuts. Nationalising the energy companies? Raising money through a tax gap of which one sixth is actually collectable? This isn't real change that people can seriously believe in, it's blind hope. It will lead to even more disillusionment with politics when people realise that Labour is completely impotent and untrustworthy and that the Tories are effectively a one party state.

"Nuts" but popular with the public, strangely? Maybe not everyone's as enamored with neoliberalism as you clearly are?

[Leftbehind]

Got some thoughts about the race, and they are probably the exact opposite of what I've said before.

1-Corbyn is the only one proposing policy-this is a complete myth, and something I saw during the General election. Kendall has proposed raising inheritance tax... Burnham opposed academies, a UCAS for apprenticeships, a separate EU campaigning group, rail nationalisation... Cooper has had universal childcare. I'd argue it's more that Corbyn is proposing left wing policies, and these are the only policies that many people want

I agree with this, other candidates have raised some attractive policies - free childcare, National Care Service, rail nationalisation etc but that's pretty much - or at least it appears that way - as the extent of their great vision.

2-Corbyn is bad because he's un-electable  - He's bad because he's proposing some absolutely awful policies that we'd heavily attack the tories for- leaving NATO, supporting a United Ireland, calling for a 'party of peace', associating  with anti Semites and that's just his foreign policy.

I'd be pretty surprised if we were leading the charge against those, tbh. Even the anti-Semites suggest you're entangled in the Palestine camp - an unfortunate reality. The Tories have associated with all sorts of these types in their Eurosceptic grouping, btw. Foreign policy is clearly his most radical, and controversial part of his platform - outside of that, "absolutely awful" to Labour voters? I doubt it.

3-Corbyn is just proposing a moderate centre left policy-again see above, these policies haven't been part of mainstream labour opinion since the 1930's (IIRC even Foot was an establishment left winger in the mould of Miliband)  Printing money to invest in infrastructure, re-opening the coal mines and becoming a party of peace isn't credible. The argument that's it's popular is true, however I'd point to the fact that for the last 20 years the Death Penalty was popular-also people don't vote on single issues it's all part of a package. If you present a package with massive tack hikes on middle england people won't support it because they said they like rail nationalization-it's like saying that gay voters will vote Tory because of gay marriage

He was very equivocal about coal mine reopening, dependent on its viability, and there's always been a significant anti-war influence in Labour (Iraq only passed with Tory support, for instance) and the wider public are more receptive to that idea than ever, as well. A lot of his positions were mainstream Conservative opinion thirty years ago, and can be found in the many European countries surrounding us.

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

Of course Miliband was held back. His platform was almost schizophrenic at times, depending on week to week what you were actually getting. Balls certainly seems to be proud of that fact.

£6,000 is double of what they were offering last time. HOL reform, whilst welcome, doesn't impassion anybody, and would likely end up the same sort of piecemeal effort that much of his leadership suffered from. Did he finally commit to the 50p tax? At the time it would've actually been clear - when it was removed - he wouldn't dare do so, and that bank levy was used to pay for everything - even to sympathetic ears it didn't sound credible especially since they were promising massive cuts.

Even as someone who was initially a supporter (check my posting history), because I thought he would at least offer a social democratic answer I basically gave up defending him by 2013.

The argument that's it's popular is true, however I'd point to the fact that for the last 20 years the Death Penalty was popular-also people don't vote on single issues it's all part of a package. If you present a package with massive tack hikes on middle england people won't support it because they said they like rail nationalization-it's like saying that gay voters will vote Tory because of gay marriage

"Buh death penalty is popular!" isn't actually an incentive to disregard public wishes, especially when they align with yours. Actually that is one stand out thing that is clear from Corbyn - it is a package of reforms that will return us to a social democratic mixed economy. I don't remember hearing him announce massive tax hikes on middle England? I did hear him announce tax rises on the wealthy and public ownership for hard-pressed commuters being fleeced, though.

The thing is the Left choose to believe otherwise because it means they don't have to sully themselves by winning over people who voted for other parties - they can just ~expand the electorate~ on a left-wing platform and win comfortably. Note an outright Trot maniac like Zanas above saying Miliband was some kind of Tory sellout.

Unprecedented austerity and cuts imposed to the welfare state because of a banking sector bailout, promises of iron discipline and a following of Tory spending plans, as well as a very lukewarm defence of public spending - with with ministers he appointed in a race to show who's "toughest" with the unemployed, the unions etc.

Although, unlike many on here, I don't believe you're even a social democrat - you're at best an Orange Booker, so I can see why this all looks LOOONEY LEFT to you.

Has anyone here read A Very British Coup? I'm reading it at the moment.

Yep, read it and even watched the aforementioned TV drama. Needless to say, I loved it. I don't know which ending I liked the best to be honest.

[Хahar 🤔]

The thing is the Left choose to believe otherwise because it means they don't have to sully themselves by winning over people who voted for other parties - they can just ~expand the electorate~ on a left-wing platform and win comfortably. Note an outright Trot maniac like Zanas above saying Miliband was some kind of Tory sellout.

Unprecedented austerity and cuts imposed to the welfare state because of a banking sector bailout, promises of iron discipline and a following of Tory spending plans, as well as a very lukewarm defence of public spending - with with ministers he appointed in a race to show who's "toughest" with the unemployed, the unions etc.

Although, unlike many on here, I don't believe you're even a social democrat - you're at best an Orange Booker, so I can see why this all looks LOOONEY LEFT to you.

As far as I know oakvale makes no claim of any affiliation with the left.

[Blair]

I'd be pretty surprised if we were leading the charge against those, tbh. Even the anti-Semites suggest you're entangled in the Palestine camp - an unfortunate reality. The Tories have associated with all sorts of these types in their Eurosceptic grouping, btw. Foreign policy is clearly his most radical, and controversial part of his platform - outside of that, "absolutely awful" to Labour voters? I doubt it.

As lame as it sounds after following Palenstinian Solidarity on facebook for a month I realized how absolutely awful it's membership it, it's ugliest form was the type of stuff we had going on with George Galloway. Corbyn has got some pretty deep ties with these groups, and when it's added to his comments about Hamas and ISIS the charge that 'he's pro-terrorist' is going to stick with the public

The tories use to have their wacko's in the Ian Smith groups, and thus it Corbyn would be similar to Neil Hamilton in that he has strong links to groups that go against the fundamentals of being a labour member IMO. I know that Foreign Policy isn't that important but it's going to tie into the package that our leader isnt a credible PM, regardless of whether we keep him until 2020 I'd want us to pick someone who we can at least pretend is credible with running the country.

He was very equivocal about coal mine reopening, dependent on its viability, and there's always been a significant anti-war influence in Labour (Iraq only passed with Tory support, for instance) and the wider public are more receptive to that idea than ever, as well. A lot of his positions were mainstream Conservative opinion thirty years ago, and can be found in the many European countries surrounding us.

But it's those kind of comments that just come across as loony left esque-like the old urban legand about Islington banning black bin bags. Although  the other candidates already have there-Yvette Balls, Andy 'Flip Flop' Burnham and Liz 'Tory' Kendall.

I'll agree there's been a 'anti-war' presence but there's a difference between Jeremy Corbyn's opposition to Iraq and Ed Milibands. Miliband's soft power approach appreciated the need to intervene in Libya and Iraq (against ISIS) See Corbyn's position on Kosovo and Milosevic as an example of him being way out of the mainstream.

I agree that they were conservative positions 30 years ago-the key is 30 years ago. Apart from rail nationalization which I'm lukewarm towards there's a reason why they were tory policies 30 years ago and not today. We can't run an election being economically illiterate and counter it by saying it was conservative policy 30 years ago. There's also policies like massive QE in economic uptimes that were never mainstream. I'm not an economist at all but Keynes never called for QE during economic growth

You must be logged in to read this quote.

IIRC he run his 2010 campaign based on keeping the 50p rate, and it was something he was always clear about defending. It was certainly one of the clearer areas of reform. The impression of our flagship policies was that they were all taxes- 50p tax, mansion tax, bank tax, energy tax etc

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is, I take a rather arrogant and probably misguided view that the public opinion on single issues is often misguided, misread and even on top of that not that important. As I've said before something like 75% agreed with our Non-Dom removal but it didn't translate into voters

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's a tax hike for middle england imo, when my Dad had a leadership position in his school he earned over 50,000. I suppose I'm a brownite in that I prefer non-direct taxes rather than increasing income tax rates

[Leftbehind]

As lame as it sounds after following Palenstinian Solidarity on facebook for a month I realized how absolutely awful it's membership it, it's ugliest form was the type of stuff we had going on with George Galloway. Corbyn has got some pretty deep ties with these groups, and when it's added to his comments about Hamas and ISIS the charge that 'he's pro-terrorist' is going to stick with the public

The tories use to have their wacko's in the Ian Smith groups, and thus it Corbyn would be similar to Neil Hamilton in that he has strong links to groups that go against the fundamentals of being a labour member IMO. I know that Foreign Policy isn't that important but it's going to tie into the package that our leader isnt a credible PM, regardless of whether we keep him until 2020 I'd want us to pick someone who we can at least pretend is credible with running the country.

We'll have to wait and see - I don't think his ties are that deep tbh, but I don't keep abreast of this aspect, so I may be wrong. I do know it'd have been worth it to get some democratic reforms so we on the left have other avenues.

But it's those kind of comments that just come across as loony left esque-like the old urban legand about Islington banning black bin bags. Although  the other candidates already have there-Yvette Balls, Andy 'Flip Flop' Burnham and Liz 'Tory' Kendall.

The Tory press has much less reach these days, and it's easier to attack a council and make sh**t up about a council that refuses to talk to the media than it is a national leader with an immediate response.

I agree that they were conservative positions 30 years ago-the key is 30 years ago. Apart from rail nationalization which I'm lukewarm towards there's a reason why they were tory policies 30 years ago and not today. We can't run an election being economically illiterate and counter it by saying it was conservative policy 30 years ago. There's also policies like massive QE in economic uptimes that were never mainstream. I'm not an economist at all but Keynes never called for QE during economic growth

Neither am I, but I do know a number of respected economists have come out to defend the idea, and a lot of that economic growth is just reinflating the housing bubble - - unemployment has just went up, for instance. It was a Conservative policy for decades that an ideological privatisation (much like the Royal Mail) seen a reversal of - something Tory voters bitterly regret. I don't share your pessimism on this.

IIRC he run his 2010 campaign based on keeping the 50p rate, and it was something he was always clear about defending. It was certainly one of the clearer areas of reform. The impression of our flagship policies was that they were all taxes- 50p tax, mansion tax, bank tax, energy tax etc

No, I distinctly remember at the time it was headline news, Labour were refusing to say it'd be their stated policy to keep the 50p for 2015.

It is, I take a rather arrogant and probably misguided view that the public opinion on single issues is often misguided, misread and even on top of that not that important. As I've said before something like 75% agreed with our Non-Dom removal but it didn't translate into voters

Because it was popular, but it didn't actually address the cost of living making it much easier to forget. How are you simultaneously able to argue that public doesn't matter on nationalisations etc but must be listened to on foreign policy?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's a tax hike for middle england imo, when my Dad had a leadership position in his school he earned over 50,000. I suppose I'm a brownite in that I prefer non-direct taxes rather than increasing income tax rates

You're mistaken

[Phony Moderate]

Watson makes his views clear.

[Leftbehind]

That's precisely why we on the Left can work with him. He's secured my first preference.

As far as I know oakvale makes no claim of any affiliation with the left.

Fair enough, just wanted it to point out I felt out it was as meaningful an indictment of any extremism as a Tory suggesting it.

I've cast my vote. I did not use all of my preferences. I've also voted in the other contests.

It's always exciting being able to vote for the conference committee!

Hell will freeze over before it happens but I'd love to see the reaction from Corbyn supporters if Kendall beat say Burnham due to the boast of 'no 2nd preference' from corbyn voters.

I think I watched a British Coup about 4 years ago on Gold at about 7 in the morning before I had any understanding of politics beyond Britain=Good

I disagree with my fellow Corbynites on this. Corbyn & Burnham's supporters must work together to stave off a civil war. Blairites, whatever Corbyn does, will try and destabilise.

Just look at recent Corbyn hustings at our town hall - Andy McDonald sat on the panel, warmly welcomed him, admitted he wasn't his choice but stressed unity was important to fight the Tories. Compare that to Tom Blekinsop whose only input was to tell the Gazette many of the attendees were enemies of the Labour party, who only supported Corbyn, and caused the 2015 loss.

[afleitch]

Wheee!

https://archive.is/QQl5m

'Labour supporters have expressed their anger at being barred from the leadership vote, as the party steps up efforts to weed out those suspected of not being genuine supporters.
It is understood that Labour sent out a fresh batch of emails to supporters this morning informing them that their applications have been rejected and that they will not be able to vote in the leadership election.'

[Leftbehind]

Wheee!

https://archive.is/QQl5m

'Labour supporters have expressed their anger at being barred from the leadership vote, as the party steps up efforts to weed out those suspected of not being genuine supporters.
It is understood that Labour sent out a fresh batch of emails to supporters this morning informing them that their applications have been rejected and that they will not be able to vote in the leadership election.'

Joke. Just wondering why you're archiving it?

[Phony Moderate]

Wheee!

https://archive.is/QQl5m

'Labour supporters have expressed their anger at being barred from the leadership vote, as the party steps up efforts to weed out those suspected of not being genuine supporters.
It is understood that Labour sent out a fresh batch of emails to supporters this morning informing them that their applications have been rejected and that they will not be able to vote in the leadership election.'

If Corbyn loses...

[Blair]

Watson will either be Corbyn's best or worse ally.

I saw something tonight saying that Andy Burnham is going to be offered the Chancellorship over John McDonnell.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I've cast my vote. I did not use all of my preferences. I've also voted in the other contests.

May I ask who you voted for? It would really help me make some sense out of this, so far I still don't really know what to think.

[Phony Moderate]

I've cast my vote. I did not use all of my preferences. I've also voted in the other contests.

May I ask who you voted for? It would really help me make some sense out of this, so far I still don't really know what to think.

I doubt either Corbyn or Kendall got a preference. Probably Burnham first and Cooper second.

[Phony Moderate]

Watson will either be Corbyn's best or worse ally.

I saw something tonight saying that Andy Burnham is going to be offered the Chancellorship over John McDonnell.

The right wouldn't take McDonnell (or any other SCGer) being given Shadow Chancellor well; he'd probably get Shadow Health or something like that. I imagine Hilary Benn would be kept as Shadow Foreign Secretary.

[Serenity Now]

I've cast my vote. I did not use all of my preferences. I've also voted in the other contests.

May I ask who you voted for? It would really help me make some sense out of this, so far I still don't really know what to think.

Yea, c'mon! Spill the beans..

[Leftbehind]

It appears the witch-hunt has, in a very real sense, spread from members of other parties to voters of them now. But purging scores of legitimate members is a small price to pay to root out a tiny minority of Tories & Trotskyists!

Makes me wonder if they're trying to make this election a farce specifically to undermine its results, or even better, to call it off.

[afleitch]

Reds Under the Bed!

[ChrisDR68]

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