Labour Party leadership election 2015

[Leftbehind]

Even if Burnham wasn't having a shocking campaign, he clearly isn't seen as an acceptable compromise for the right of the party.

That seems rather silly of them.

They've been acting very silly of late - not at all used to having to compromise. Amazed at the amount of Blairites holding up an innocuous tweet from a Sky News reporter, that 50,000 votes were cast by 12K during their debates as proof that Corbyn's popularity is all stage-managed, and not simply how a live opinion-meter works. Of course, the studio audience were obviously part of that rigging.

But more generally, many wanted a lurch rightwards following the defeat for Miliband, as it apparently shown the electoral failure of left-wing politics, and Burnham doesn't represent that for them.

[Hnv1]

are Labour peers voting as part of the PLP?

[Phony Moderate]

are Labour peers voting as part of the PLP?

Well there's no PLP bloc anymore but if there were then no.

[Blair]

Even if Burnham wasn't having a shocking campaign, he clearly isn't seen as an acceptable compromise for the right of the party.

That seems rather silly of them.

Especially given that he is, you know, on the right of the party (though on the left of this leadership campaign).

Eh Burnham has always been hard to tackle-I get the impression from some labour members that anyone not supporting a Corbyn agenda is well a right wing Blairite. The only clear right wing policy he has is on immigration, and that's still relatively moderate compared to people like Danczuk and Hoey.

There's going to be a lot of Blairite MP's who will thank the gods that JC doesn't win, but then realize they've got Burnham as leader

[Silent Hunter]

There's going to be a lot of Blairite MP's who will thank the gods that JC doesn't win, but then realize they've got Burnham as leader

To be entirely honest, none of this lot are stand out and I honestly think Labour can write off the next election now. The Tory line will be "if they can't run a leadership election properly, how can they run the country?" and at any rate, we failed to beat Thatcher with 3 million on the dole.

Labour has gone back to its traditional position - a party of opposition.

[DavidB.]

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.

[Leftbehind]

Eh Burnham has always been hard to tackle-I get the impression from some labour members that anyone not supporting a Corbyn agenda is well a right wing Blairite.

Sorry, but it was Yvette's camp going with both barrels at Burnham for attempting to bring onboard Corbyn's support.

The only clear right wing policy he has is on immigration, and that's still relatively moderate compared to people like Danczuk and Hoey.

There's going to be a lot of Blairite MP's who will thank the gods that JC doesn't win, but then realize they've got Burnham as leader

I rest my case, your honour.

Labour has gone back to its traditional position - a party of opposition.

Post-war Labour only failed to govern for most of the 50's and 80's, and even then they were robbed at the 1951 election.

[Silent Hunter]

Post-war Labour only failed to govern for most of the 50's and 80's, and even then they were robbed at the 1951 election.

Nearly half the 60s, an effective minority government in the 70s, out of office for over half of the 90s and pretty much all of this decade unless something very odd happens.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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.

Ah, but such miserablism is the Labour Party way you see. A book was published shortly after the 1959 election with the title of Must Labour Lose?: the argument of the book was that unless Labour made massive changes then the answer was 'yes'. Labour did not make massive changes and was highly resistant to even very minor ones. Guess who won the next election.

The thing I would point out is that the Tories are also due a leadership election in this parliament. It's unlikely to be a clusterfyck in the way that Labour's has been/is, but it will likely be a clusterfyck all the same.

[Leftbehind]

^Not to mention a likely acrimonious EU referendum.

Nearly half the 60s, an effective minority government in the 70s

More than the Tories could win in the 70's, and I didn't expect over half in the 60's to be classed as 'traditional opposition' territory.

out of office for over half of the 90s and pretty much all of this decade unless something very odd happens.

The noughties is certainly matching the 1980's nadir. New Labour seems to have left us discredited and demoralised (rightly or wrongly), hence the appetite for an Old Labour return.

[politicus]

The thing I would point out is that the Tories are also due a leadership election in this parliament. It's unlikely to be a clusterfyck in the way that Labour's has been/is, but it will likely be a clusterfyck all the same.

Theresa May vs. Jeremy Corbyn in 2020 would be fun.

(unless you are British, I guess)

[Antonio the Sixth]

Elections are not decided 5 years in advance. Stop whining guys.

[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.

[Blair]

The noughties is certainly matching the 1980's nadir. New Labour seems to have left us discredited and demoralised (rightly or wrongly), hence the appetite for an Old Labour return.

There's always a trend of Labour absolutely killing itself after office. This is an extreme simplification but often a whole host of problems come out in one issue

1950's- Nuclear Disarmament
1970's- Keynesian economics/Bennism
2010s- Iraq/Neo-Liberalism

The reason I'm so desolate about it is that Labour were expected to at least stop the tories getting more than 290 seats at the worse. I thought after 5 years of austerity/general tory crapness that there support would drop rather than increase

[Silent Hunter]

Ah, but such miserablism is the Labour Party way you see. A book was published shortly after the 1959 election with the title of Must Labour Lose?: the argument of the book was that unless Labour made massive changes then the answer was 'yes'. Labour did not make massive changes and was highly resistant to even very minor ones. Guess who won the next election.

With a bare majority against Douglas-Home... between the end of the war in August 1945 (the election was the month before) and 1997, Labour won precisely one working majority. The Tories won five.

[Blair]

Another fun fact.

Only one Labour leader has won an general election since 1974

[Silent Hunter]

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

[Phony Moderate]

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.

[Blair]

I thought the rule with the electoral system is that we accept 1951 because we won 2005

As much as I usually dislike Dan Hodges his article on Total Politics has a couple of good lines. I'm extremely guilty of the 2nd one

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Phony Moderate]

Corbyn's odds seem to be tightening again.

[Clyde1998]

Our biggest concern was that poll that had us at 8% in the Scottish elections next year

What poll was that? I haven't seen Labour below 20%, tbh.

The poll has disappeared, Ruth Davidson and several blairites re-tweeted it-basically laughing at the fact that we're doing worse than the tories for probably the first time since well ages

Probably a subsample from a UK-wide poll - wouldn't read too much into them.

[3 5 0 1 2 5]

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!

[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.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

The noughties is certainly matching the 1980's nadir. New Labour seems to have left us discredited and demoralised (rightly or wrongly), hence the appetite for an Old Labour return.

You see, this is the danger. Thinking that what some of the hardcore base want = electoral success. Let me make this clear, Labour did not lose the last election, because it wasn't left enough. I'm sure the left of the party would love to think, but, no. They lost because of a lack of vision and because it appeared they had no plan of their own.

The polling showing how far the Corbynites are from the mainstream voters, you know, the ones you need to win elections, tells you everything you need to know. Labour kept thinking people would punish the Tories for austerity and just seemed to think the election would be handed to them. Sure, some people did, but they flogged the Lib Dems instead plus Labour got buried in a patriotic wave in Scotland that it pretty much couldn't avoid. 

Labour was humiliated by a series of events both beyond their control and basically being without a compelling narrative for the voters they needed to win. This needs to be the lesson about this context, do you want to feel justified or do you want to win? very few have the luxury of getting both.

[Phony Moderate]

The Daily Mail is saying that one of the campaigns is about to call for the count to be delayed/the contest extended by three days.