Labour leadership

Nominations closed today with four candidates making it onto the ballot paper

Anyone but Kendall. If I wanted to vote for a Tory I'd have voted for Call Me Dave's bunch last month. Judging by some of her recent comments, she's almost as economically illiterate as Osborne, which is really going some. For another Tory in disguise, see also Umunna, so it is good that he dropped out of the contest so quickly.

Cooper is a highly intelligent and capable politician (who understands economics!) but her marriage to Balls and somewhat robotic style means she isn't a great choice. Too much for the Tory press to get their knives into there, I think.

Good to see Corbyn entering the fray as, you know, the Labour party really ought to have a left-wing option on their leadership ballot. The fact that none of the others have made a serious stand against austerity (though Cooper and Burnham certainly understand the glaring flaws of recent economic policy) shows just how weak and unwilling they are to take on the nonsense which has become perceived wisdom promoted by Osborne and his chums in the right-wing press. Corbyn is in there to open up the debate a little so good on him. If nothing else, it will reveal how weak or how calculated the others are. Oh, nice to get a candidate who didn't go to Oxbridge as well!

Don't dislike Burnham though he doesn't impress me a great deal either. I suspect he's the best option all told, but we would probably need to rely on a implosion in the Conservative party for him to win the next election. Perhaps just possible when you consider some of the planned Tory policies but highly unlikely because they are going to gerrymander, I mean reorganise the constituency boundaries making it all but impossible for Labour to get a big enough swing to win outright next time.

The public rejected the left wing option at the general election. Like when England sack their football manager I can see a swing to the opposite extreme so expect one of the Tories in disguise to get it. If you can't beat them....

Quoted from psgmariner

The public rejected the left wing option at the general election. Like when England sack their football manager I can see a swing to the opposite extreme so expect one of the Tories in disguise to get it. If you can't beat them....

Is that really entirely what happened though? Labour were massacred in Scotland for not being left-wing enough. The Tories targetted the Lib Dems in the south of England-areas that have never been Labour heartlands to great effect. True they lost marginals in the East/West Midlands they should've won but a key factor in that was the defection of Labour voters to UKIP -a strange sort of rejection of the left wing option.

Whoever the next leader is has the hardest task of any Labour leader in certainly my lifetime.

I haven't decided who to vote for yet only that it won't be the God-awful Kendall...

There is a valid point that the right-wing parties (Tories + UKIP) received over 50% of the vote (though obviously not of the electorate), but I personally believe much of this is down to a good proportion of voters believing the "SNP will control Miliband like a puppet" nonsense promulgated by the right-wing press and echoed by the incompetent BBC, not to mention the similar and easily disproved idea of Tory economic competence over the previous parliament. If all the newspapers and everyone on TV is telling you one thing, you can see why many will believe it, even if has little basis in truth. I wonder how many voters who would otherwise have leant towards Labour drifted across to the right because of this?

It's actually a real pity that we don't have a similar electoral process to, say, Australia where voting is actually compulsory and election day is a public holiday to make it easier for people to vote. This would go some way towards evening up the issue of the voter turnout paradox:

http://stumblingandmumbling.ty.....turnout-paradox.html

The proportion of the electorate who voted moved to the right - the people with most to lose didn't vote at all! These are the people the Labour party should be trying to get to the polls to win their votes, not the shy Conservatives who are more likely to vote regardless.

Quoted from psgmariner

The public rejected the left wing option at the general election. Like when England sack their football manager I can see a swing to the opposite extreme so expect one of the Tories in disguise to get it. If you can't beat them....

Funnily enough I'd seen something about a greater number of people voted for Milliband / Labour last month than when Blair was re-elected in 2005

http://grayee.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/ed-miliband-got-more-votes-in-england.html

What I still don't get is how we accept a system where democracy means less than 25% of the electorate gives a majority government... madness  

personally i don't think any of them can hold a candle to cameron and osborne, who will rubbing their hands in glee at the lack of quality. burnham and cooper are both second rate and non descript.corbyn is highly entertaining but completely unelectable. kendall is interesting but so inexperienced she'd be a liability. umunna is the one who would have given the tories something to think about so its a shame he dropped out so early.


labour has the quadruple problem of what to do in scotland, the loss of seats due to the perfectly reasonable reorganisation of constituencies, the fact that the tories are utterly ruthless and far more politically astute than labour and an improving economy.
imho labour needs to have a deep deep think about what they are offering. in the past when people's living standards were low and life consisted of working for the same company and living in council provided housing their appeal to the working class was obvious.
nowadays working people have their own homes, nice things and more leisure time. they want to keep those things and move up to say shopping at m&s and john lewis etc. they are far more right wing re immigration and crime because of this. talk to people in gy and they despise the druggies and the burglars; they don't have the liberal 'lets help these poor people, and try and help them with their problems' attitude
whilst the zero hours contracts and benefit cuts are things that labour should be against, its not the main problem for the majority of people. imho these things should be a part of their campaign but it did seem like it was almost the main things they were worried about.
labour has to win in the more affluent parts of the country, and that means a totally different approach which i just cannot see happening to avoid a seemingly inevitable defeat in 2020

[quote=228]

Is that really entirely what happened though? Labour were massacred in Scotland for not being left-wing enough [quote]

I think they massacred just because they weren't the SNP.

Quoted from psgmariner

[quote=228]

Is that really entirely what happened though? Labour were massacred in Scotland for not being left-wing enough [quote]

I think they massacred just because they weren't the SNP.

I would agree with that and the way things are set up I can see the Tories being in the hot seat for the next decade.

The Scots should have been told until they understood it, that a vote for SNP is a vote for putting Tories in power.

I am not impressed with any of them,

The other Milliband needs to come back before the next election for labour to stand any chance,

I know he went off sulking and took a highly paid job for a charity,

BUT

He is the only chance Labour have of taking power unless some other candidate appears from no where before the next election.

Quoted from forza ivano

personally i don't think any of them can hold a candle to cameron and osborne, who will rubbing their hands in glee at the lack of quality. burnham and cooper are both second rate and non descript.corbyn is highly entertaining but completely unelectable. kendall is interesting but so inexperienced she'd be a liability. umunna is the one who would have given the tories something to think about so its a shame he dropped out so early.

labour has the quadruple problem of what to do in scotland, the loss of seats due to the perfectly reasonable reorganisation of constituencies, the fact that the tories are utterly ruthless and far more politically astute than labour and an improving economy.
imho labour needs to have a deep deep think about what they are offering. in the past when people's living standards were low and life consisted of working for the same company and living in council provided housing their appeal to the working class was obvious.
nowadays working people have their own homes, nice things and more leisure time. they want to keep those things and move up to say shopping at m&s and john lewis etc. they are far more right wing re immigration and crime because of this. talk to people in gy and they despise the druggies and the burglars; they don't have the liberal 'lets help these poor people, and try and help them with their problems' attitude
whilst the zero hours contracts and benefit cuts are things that labour should be against, its not the main problem for the majority of people. imho these things should be a part of their campaign but it did seem like it was almost the main things they were worried about.
labour has to win in the more affluent parts of the country, and that means a totally different approach which i just cannot see happening to avoid a seemingly inevitable defeat in 2020

As the Tories experienced back in 1997, the Labour party since 2010 has been in difficulty as all of the big 'names' are indelibly linked to the previous long-running administration. Most of the biggest Labour party characters fell on their swords in the Blair/Brown era, the two Eds have now gone and this leaves people such as Burnham who are perfectly competent but were never overly ambitious and Cooper who is very competent but lacking the common touch. Kendall and Umunna have been spouting the Conservative propaganda as if it were the truth.

http://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/labours-growing-macroeconomic-illiteracy.html

Why would a Labour politician do such a thing? They either aren't competent enough to understand the falsity of the Tories' economic and other policy bullshite, aren't brave enough to stand up and point out the lies or are cynical enough to go along with them in an attempt to appeal to a misinformed electorate. The two Eds failed appallingly by acting in a similar manner about the economy especially yet these two 'leadership' candidates want to attempt to replicate them? The mind boggles as to what they are thinking.

Cameron spent most of the election campaign (and the year or so running up to it) lying about pretty much anything you can think about and could get away with it thanks to the backing of the massed ranks of the right-wing press and an acquiescent BBC unwilling (or simply incapable) of reporting on pretty much anything but the stuff printed in said press. Being able to outspend Labour by around 2 to 1 certainly hasn't helped them in the past couple of elections, either.

As for Osborne, he is entirely politically and ideologically motivated and must surely the least competent Chancellor we've ever had. You talk about a recovering economy? Osborne oversaw the weakest recovery following a recession for around 200 years in the last parliament! Osborne's austerian policies cut off a moderate recovery and have (and continue) to increase poverty amongst the poorest whilst transferring wealth to the very richest. Real wages are still below the pre-recession levels and the only reason anybody was feeling a bit better about things from 2014 onwards was due to the drop in oil prices and inflation which was absolutely nothing to do with Osborne, yet he still somehow claimed the credit!

His latest 'policy' targetted at setting up the Labour party is his promise to legislate for surpluses in good times to try and get them to say this isn't necessary. This policy from Osborne is so far beyond stupid, it has been ridiculed by the FT and Economist - has he got anybody that understands macroeconomics working for him at the Treasury? The chart at the top of this blog post from Frances Coppola shows the figures from the OBR's economic forecast back in March:

http://coppolacomment.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/repeat-after-me-sectoral-balances-must.html

The red line shows recent and forecast government spending. The OBR thinks that, under Osborne's plans, the government deficit will become a surplus some time during 2018/2019. Now look at the green line. This is our balance of payments deficit, money leaving the country because we import a heck of a lot more than we export. Incidentally, I can't imagine why they think our trade deficit is likely to fall in the near future - what do we actually have to export these days? Perhaps something to do with a drop in the cost of oil? Dunno. Anyway, the yellow line shows that they expect the corporate sector to start borrowing more soon which is actually good news as businesses only borrow when investing in expectation of profit. When things aren't great, they just fire people.

The really interesting one here is the blue line showing household borrowing. As you can see from the downward trajectory since 2011, Osborne's much-vaunted economic plan has relied greatly on households taking on more debt, mostly through the inflation of another housing bubble, aided and abetted by various government subsidies! As Coppola notes, sectoral balances must sum to zero - the only way the government will be able to run Osborne's planned surplus is by households taking on increasing amounts of debt as clearly shown in this OBR chart. How whacky is that? Osborne is saying it is so vital that the national debt is paid down as soon as possible that we've all got to borrow more ourselves. This despite the fact that the UK government borrowing costs are at an all-time low. The only way that the government can run regular surpluses is through households running regular deficits. Wonder if any of the newspapers or media will actually, you know, forcefully point out that the Emperor Has No Clothes with this latest 'plan'?

Anyway, sorry about that little rant. When somebody says anything positive about Osborne my head explodes!  

Back to your other points. The reorganisation of boundaries was chiefly arranged by the coalition government because in general, the Labour party has required fewer votes to win seats than the Conservatives. I'd imagine that much of this was due to the previous Conservative lock-out in Scotland which meant that the small constituencies there gave Labour the benefit. This time, however, the Tories actually needed around 6,000 less votes to win each seat than Labour! The SNP needed 14,000 less votes than Labour to win each of their seats. The utterly ridiculous electoral system we have here allows these margins which is bad enough until you see that the LibDems needed over 300,000 votes to win each of their seats and poor old UKIP needed almost 4 million votes for their one seat! Absolutely crazy and you can see why our voting system is considered so comical by most of the civilised world. The boundary changes which come into place next election will make it more difficult for Labour but would have been entirely fair if we had a proper proportional electoral system. With first past the post, it remains little more than gerrymandering.

You're correct that we're not as impoverished as previous generations, but we're certainly heading that way for the majority of the population. You note that these days, working people have their own homes, nice things and leisure time. Really? How many working people do you know under the age of 30 or 35 who own their own home? Average age for first time buyers is now 36 in the country as a whole, 41 in other parts of the country. Average house price is 7 times the median wage. I was lucky enough to buy my house over a dozen years ago - it is now 'worth' double what I paid back then and this in Cleethorpes, hardly a property hotspot. My wife is 11 years younger than me - none of her friends from University (some reasonably well-paid) have been able to afford to buy a house as yet. When I was her age, most of my friends had owned homes for 6 or 7 years. Not nearly enough houses are being built (possibly another part of Osborne's genius plan as building houses would reduce prices?) so it is only going to get worse for the young in the future.

In addition to housing policy, don't forget employment. Unemployment for ages 16-24 is three times as high as the rest of the population and most of the jobs the young can get are sub-McShite jobs. Retirement ages are going up as well so that means fewer jobs for the young to take over as well. We simply can't go on as things are, especially when Osborne's further planned cuts are going to hit the poorest in society once again. Note the cutting of Working tax credits which has been mooted recently is for those who already have low-paid jobs in the first place! Tens or hundreds of thousands more children will be forced into poverty. Poverty leads to greater crime, the druggies and burglars you mention.

For me, we need an effective opposition so the likes of Kendall and Umunna are about the worst thing that could happen to the country. Burnham or Cooper it will have to be and I only hope that they will actually start speaking up, noting the failure of Tory policies and how they are economically illiterate, taking on the right-wing press and forcing the BBC to actually report the news.

I still doubt it will be enough to win a majority (the Tories will probably be able to spend triple or even quadruple as much as Labour next time), but they need to make their voices heard and hopefully inform some of the electorate what is actually going on in the country.

If they do that, then at least the aging "I'm all right Jack" voters in the country will only have themselves to blame when the excrement inevitably hits the fan in future years when the rightfully disgruntled young begin to have their say.

Shite. That was a bit longer than planned.

Actually, should just have posted Frankie Boyle's much funnier run-down instead.  

http://www.theguardian.com/com.....htwing-frankie-boyle

Quoted from Maringer

As the Tories experienced back in 1997, the Labour party since 2010 has been in difficulty as all of the big 'names' are indelibly linked to the previous long-running administration. Most of the biggest Labour party characters fell on their swords in the Blair/Brown era, the two Eds have now gone and this leaves people such as Burnham who are perfectly competent but were never overly ambitious and Cooper who is very competent but lacking the common touch. Kendall and Umunna have been spouting the Conservative propaganda as if it were the truth.

http://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/labours-growing-macroeconomic-illiteracy.html

Why would a Labour politician do such a thing? They either aren't competent enough to understand the falsity of the Tories' economic and other policy bullshite, aren't brave enough to stand up and point out the lies or are cynical enough to go along with them in an attempt to appeal to a misinformed electorate. The two Eds failed appallingly by acting in a similar manner about the economy especially yet these two 'leadership' candidates want to attempt to replicate them? The mind boggles as to what they are thinking.

Cameron spent most of the election campaign (and the year or so running up to it) lying about pretty much anything you can think about and could get away with it thanks to the backing of the massed ranks of the right-wing press and an acquiescent BBC unwilling (or simply incapable) of reporting on pretty much anything but the stuff printed in said press. Being able to outspend Labour by around 2 to 1 certainly hasn't helped them in the past couple of elections, either.

As for Osborne, he is entirely politically and ideologically motivated and must surely the least competent Chancellor we've ever had. You talk about a recovering economy? Osborne oversaw the weakest recovery following a recession for around 200 years in the last parliament! Osborne's austerian policies cut off a moderate recovery and have (and continue) to increase poverty amongst the poorest whilst transferring wealth to the very richest. Real wages are still below the pre-recession levels and the only reason anybody was feeling a bit better about things from 2014 onwards was due to the drop in oil prices and inflation which was absolutely nothing to do with Osborne, yet he still somehow claimed the credit!

His latest 'policy' targetted at setting up the Labour party is his promise to legislate for surpluses in good times to try and get them to say this isn't necessary. This policy from Osborne is so far beyond stupid, it has been ridiculed by the FT and Economist - has he got anybody that understands macroeconomics working for him at the Treasury? The chart at the top of this blog post from Frances Coppola shows the figures from the OBR's economic forecast back in March:

http://coppolacomment.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/repeat-after-me-sectoral-balances-must.html

The red line shows recent and forecast government spending. The OBR thinks that, under Osborne's plans, the government deficit will become a surplus some time during 2018/2019. Now look at the green line. This is our balance of payments deficit, money leaving the country because we import a heck of a lot more than we export. Incidentally, I can't imagine why they think our trade deficit is likely to fall in the near future - what do we actually have to export these days? Perhaps something to do with a drop in the cost of oil? Dunno. Anyway, the yellow line shows that they expect the corporate sector to start borrowing more soon which is actually good news as businesses only borrow when investing in expectation of profit. When things aren't great, they just fire people.

The really interesting one here is the blue line showing household borrowing. As you can see from the downward trajectory since 2011, Osborne's much-vaunted economic plan has relied greatly on households taking on more debt, mostly through the inflation of another housing bubble, aided and abetted by various government subsidies! As Coppola notes, sectoral balances must sum to zero - the only way the government will be able to run Osborne's planned surplus is by households taking on increasing amounts of debt as clearly shown in this OBR chart. How whacky is that? Osborne is saying it is so vital that the national debt is paid down as soon as possible that we've all got to borrow more ourselves. This despite the fact that the UK government borrowing costs are at an all-time low. The only way that the government can run regular surpluses is through households running regular deficits. Wonder if any of the newspapers or media will actually, you know, forcefully point out that the Emperor Has No Clothes with this latest 'plan'?

Anyway, sorry about that little rant. When somebody says anything positive about Osborne my head explodes!  

Back to your other points. The reorganisation of boundaries was chiefly arranged by the coalition government because in general, the Labour party has required fewer votes to win seats than the Conservatives. I'd imagine that much of this was due to the previous Conservative lock-out in Scotland which meant that the small constituencies there gave Labour the benefit. This time, however, the Tories actually needed around 6,000 less votes to win each seat than Labour! The SNP needed 14,000 less votes than Labour to win each of their seats. The utterly ridiculous electoral system we have here allows these margins which is bad enough until you see that the LibDems needed over 300,000 votes to win each of their seats and poor old UKIP needed almost 4 million votes for their one seat! Absolutely crazy and you can see why our voting system is considered so comical by most of the civilised world. The boundary changes which come into place next election will make it more difficult for Labour but would have been entirely fair if we had a proper proportional electoral system. With first past the post, it remains little more than gerrymandering.

You're correct that we're not as impoverished as previous generations, but we're certainly heading that way for the majority of the population. You note that these days, working people have their own homes, nice things and leisure time. Really? How many working people do you know under the age of 30 or 35 who own their own home? Average age for first time buyers is now 36 in the country as a whole, 41 in other parts of the country. Average house price is 7 times the median wage. I was lucky enough to buy my house over a dozen years ago - it is now 'worth' double what I paid back then and this in Cleethorpes, hardly a property hotspot. My wife is 11 years younger than me - none of her friends from University (some reasonably well-paid) have been able to afford to buy a house as yet. When I was her age, most of my friends had owned homes for 6 or 7 years. Not nearly enough houses are being built (possibly another part of Osborne's genius plan as building houses would reduce prices?) so it is only going to get worse for the young in the future.

In addition to housing policy, don't forget employment. Unemployment for ages 16-24 is three times as high as the rest of the population and most of the jobs the young can get are sub-McShite jobs. Retirement ages are going up as well so that means fewer jobs for the young to take over as well. We simply can't go on as things are, especially when Osborne's further planned cuts are going to hit the poorest in society once again. Note the cutting of Working tax credits which has been mooted recently is for those who already have low-paid jobs in the first place! Tens or hundreds of thousands more children will be forced into poverty. Poverty leads to greater crime, the druggies and burglars you mention.

For me, we need an effective opposition so the likes of Kendall and Umunna are about the worst thing that could happen to the country. Burnham or Cooper it will have to be and I only hope that they will actually start speaking up, noting the failure of Tory policies and how they are economically illiterate, taking on the right-wing press and forcing the BBC to actually report the news.

I still doubt it will be enough to win a majority (the Tories will probably be able to spend triple or even quadruple as much as Labour next time), but they need to make their voices heard and hopefully inform some of the electorate what is actually going on in the country.

If they do that, then at least the aging "I'm all right Jack" voters in the country will only have themselves to blame when the excrement inevitably hits the fan in future years when the rightfully disgruntled young begin to have their say.

Shite. That was a bit longer than planned.

Well it saved me from having to write a (far less well written) reply....excellent critique of the current situation  

A good post Maringer and enjoyed the links - interesting stuff.

I would take issue with your somewhat arrogant assumption that you know more about these things than some of the politicians who disagree with you.

The ONS stats out today certainly seem to show the end of the world is not quite as imminent as some of your posts make out.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33162403

The point is that we're currently in a 'pause' in the austerity that Osborne planned and plans again. His austerity measures practically shut down the economy from 2010-2012, were quietly relaxed in 2013 when they realised how disastrously things were going to allow a modest recovery in the lead up to the election (also more by luck than design as low inflation is all that saved him), and we know he now plans an emergency budget next month where he's going to outlight further cuts (mostly on the poor) all over again. It really makes me laugh when the Tories say they are sticking to their "long-term economic plan" as they've failed in every measure they were aiming to meet when they came into office in 2010 and have somehow got away changing their reasoning for their cuts whilst hiding the fact they actually changed the overall plan mid-way through the last parliament!

I suspect the situation over the next 5 years will be the same as last time - more harsh cuts for the first 2 or 3 years, ideologically aiming to cut the state further, then a relaxation as the next election approaches. Unfortunately, the electorate has a habit of forgetting hard times if things have been looking up for 18 months or so before an election hence the mistaken belief he's been anything other than a disastrous chancellor. Whether or not he'll be as lucky this time remains to be seen.

Note that the government are currently positioning themselves to blame anything that goes wrong with the economy on Eurozone woes. Another thing that has been to Osborne's benefit is that the Eurozone economic policy has been even worse (and with more severe outcomes) than our own! Allows Osborne to use his same old tired "strongest recovery in Europe" guff even though it has been historically terrible.

It is pleasing to hear that wages are probably growing reasonably at last but don't forget it is 8 years since the recession began! The worst recovery from a recession and it is unheard of for wages to be falling then depressed for so long after a recession. No doubt that

Low unemployment is good but there certainly seems to be something odd about the figures there. It will be interesting to see if any good research comes out about the types and quality of these jobs. I know the move to part-time work has been very big and I wonder how much of our terrible productivity performance is down to the poor quality of the jobs and underemployment.

https://www.tuc.org.uk/economi.....ours-top-their-wages

Incidentally, I would urge you to read the following article which points out just how far away ideologically the current bunch of Conservatives are compared to those in the past:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/17/conservatives-unions-tax-housing-brussels

Cameron, Osborne & Co are doing stuff which even Thatcher wouldn't have dreamed of imposing on the nation. They are heading even to the right of the American Republican party which shows there is serious ideological whackiness going on.

Quoted from Maringer

The point is that we're currently in a 'pause' in the austerity that Osborne planned and plans again. His austerity measures practically shut down the economy from 2010-2012, were quietly relaxed in 2013 when they realised how disastrously things were going to allow a modest recovery in the lead up to the election (also more by luck than design as low inflation is all that saved him), and we know he now plans an emergency budget next month where he's going to outlight further cuts (mostly on the poor) all over again. It really makes me laugh when the Tories say they are sticking to their "long-term economic plan" as they've failed in every measure they were aiming to meet when they came into office in 2010 and have somehow got away changing their reasoning for their cuts whilst hiding the fact they actually changed the overall plan mid-way through the last parliament!

I suspect the situation over the next 5 years will be the same as last time - more harsh cuts for the first 2 or 3 years, ideologically aiming to cut the state further, then a relaxation as the next election approaches. Unfortunately, the electorate has a habit of forgetting hard times if things have been looking up for 18 months or so before an election hence the mistaken belief he's been anything other than a disastrous chancellor. Whether or not he'll be as lucky this time remains to be seen.

Note that the government are currently positioning themselves to blame anything that goes wrong with the economy on Eurozone woes. Another thing that has been to Osborne's benefit is that the Eurozone economic policy has been even worse (and with more severe outcomes) than our own! Allows Osborne to use his same old tired "strongest recovery in Europe" guff even though it has been historically terrible.

It is pleasing to hear that wages are probably growing reasonably at last but don't forget it is 8 years since the recession began! The worst recovery from a recession and it is unheard of for wages to be falling then depressed for so long after a recession. No doubt that

Low unemployment is good but there certainly seems to be something odd about the figures there. It will be interesting to see if any good research comes out about the types and quality of these jobs. I know the move to part-time work has been very big and I wonder how much of our terrible productivity performance is down to the poor quality of the jobs and underemployment.

https://www.tuc.org.uk/economi.....ours-top-their-wages

Incidentally, I would urge you to read the following article which points out just how far away ideologically the current bunch of Conservatives are compared to those in the past:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/17/conservatives-unions-tax-housing-brussels

Cameron, Osborne & Co are doing stuff which even Thatcher wouldn't have dreamed of imposing on the nation. They are heading even to the right of the American Republican party which shows there is serious ideological whackiness going on.

I saw somewhere the other day a term that summed up Osborne perfectly....GIDIOT  

[IMG]http://i59.tinypic.com/zjy0ph.jpg[/IMG]

Some great debate and input. The Tories managed to do what they do best and scare the nation into voting for them. Let's hope the country wakes up before they have no welfare provision, a raped NHS, 40 plus class sizes etc because that's what scares me. As for leader, Burnham has one thing most politicians lack in having a common touch. If anyone hasn't seen it, I'd direct you to his speech at Anfield at the Hillsborough memorial. He got it and actually did something about it.
I'd prefer Skinner, but AB will do.

First hustings on BBC 2 and five live at 7pm tonight

I was hovering between Kendall and Burnham  before tonight's debate but after hearing what's been said Kendall can sod off.  She comes across as quite patronizing and as some have said sounds like a tory.

Burnham for me

As an indie reader and usually lib dem voter I'm generally sympathetic to a more left wing argument, and it maybe that the fact that the south east is doing quite nicely thank you, colours my viewpoint. I do know that construction round here is booming, wages are going up, there aren't enough competent workers out there and tonight I left 7 jobs unfilled which is almost unheard of. I've just done the biggest payroll today in the history of our company.
The problem for labour is that the biggest richest and most important region in the country is seemingly completely uninspired by them. Then you've got another entire region where they were wiped out ,they never figure in the south west and East Anglian anyway, plus a new party whose dubious policies do actually resonate with a good number of voters who otherwise would be solid labour.
Labours natural constituency is slowly disappearing ,skilled workers tradesmen , racial minorities etc are the sort of people who would have voted labour but now are the ones I argued who have'aspirations' or have moved up the ladder or have something to lose. I would further argue that the people most likely to vote labour are the young and the 'underclass' plus your guardian reading liberal lefties.unfotunately there aren't many of said groups and not many of the first two vote. The people who do tend to vote are the more affluent and the old. Hence why both groups are so determinedly looked after by the Tories and why most of the bad stuff impacts on the young. Only 23% of the elderly voted labour! which speaks volumes.The Tories are rich, brilliantly ruthless and totally cynical. Osbornes new law, the protection of pensioners benefits, the one nation stuff appealing to the ' blue collar skilled workers' are all cynical clever stuff. I note now that they are starting to consider presenting a far more friendly, less aggressive face to ethnic minorities and immigrants. You won't be surprised to learn that polling suggested a  big swing to the Tories in May from these groups.
I think the pendulum will only swing back once the cuts have started to cut so deep that the elderly, the affluent , Tory voters actually are impacted by the cuts. Once these people can't get doctors appointments, can't find a dentist, have to drive on Nigerian standard roads, can't get housing for their off spring, don't have their bins collected and see crime rates going up then you will find the tide turning, but otherwise I think Cameron and the boys are here for the next ten years at least

Btw ma ringer your point about low wages part time work etc is something I've been interested in for years (I run an agency!). I think you may well be correct re productivity, for example job sharing, part time work in our industry just does not work, it's disruptive and inefficient IMHO. But at least people stayed in work and we didn't have millions on the dole for years on end. It's not the type of work or number of hours they want but at least they are working and earning and having the chance of getting overtime , extra hours or being there if an opportunity for full time work or promotion presents itself.its not ideal and it's not perfect but it's better than wjat happened under thatcher

Oh, I agree on the balance of things that fewer long-term unemployed and more in part-time work is a good start following a recession but, unfortunately, there is little indication that the recovery is going to be strong enough to turn many of them into properly-paid full-time positions.

Juggling multiple part-time workers might work out better for businesses and allow them to make more profit, but it is inevitably going to put more pressure on the state through increased pension liabilities, lower tax receipts and (currently) the cost of more tax credits/housing benefit. It is going to be a downward spiral for the economy as the poorest sector of society have less to spend and Osborne's next round of self-defeating cuts will make this problem even worse.

Even more than that, the Tories are looking to further weaken the unions which have already been pretty much emasculated over the years. Bringing in voting rules for industrial action which are massively more stringent than those for parliamentary elections is so hypocritical it is almost embarrassing. Only a handful of Tory MPs would have been elected if they had needed to meet the same vote percentages! Even Thatcher didn't attempt to attack the Unions to such a degree. The result of this will be even less power for workers which will lead to even less job security, lower wages, fewer good jobs etc etc. Not to mention cutting Labour party funding, of course.

Funny you should mention the recession of the 80s which led to such high and long-term unemployment as this was exacerbated by some terrible economic decisions by the Tories:

http://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/on-economic-achievements-and-failures.html

Don't forget that the 'Big Bang' in the City also started the events which led to the recent and deep recession. Why exactly is it that people believe that the Conservative party is economically competent? I can only assume that it is because they control the media so effectively and the public believe all the tripe they are fed.

What I would really, really like to know is whether Osborne really knows what his "Long Term Economic Plan" will achieve, other than trying to guarantee another Tory government in 5 or 10 years time? Does he seriously, seriously think the economy will become stronger when there are fewer decent jobs paying good wages and productivity continues to lag all our competitors? Does he seriously think that continuing to inflate the property market whilst failing to build enough new homes will lead to anything but another property crash in the future? Does he seriously think that cutting welfare further will magically lead to full employment when there are not enough good jobs around already? Does he seriously think cutting taxes of the wealthy will lead to growth when every serious study has proved the theory utterly incorrect? Does he seriously think that the youth and the young of today will continue to accept the ever-increasing transfer of wealth to the older, richer sections of the population? He's so set on putting money into the pockets of the rentier classes to buy their votes that he doesn't appear to have realised that people need to have money to rent said houses which is why housing benefits continue to rocket!

When the generally right-wing FT and Economist begin to write articles mocking the policies of a Conservative chancellor, you know they acting bizarrely!

Troubled times ahead.

All sound arguments, but labour aren't seen as having the answers. Better the devil you know etc etc. plus there's the argument that God knows what state we'd have been in had balls n milliband had been in charge.
I'd disagree about the jobs.there are plenty of decent jobs about, it's just that it so heavily skewed towards the already fully employed south east. One could also disagree about the quality of work. Is working in a supermarket, in a warm dry environment , with usually overtime and a pension and staff discount available, so much worse than a boring repetitive factory line job?
It maybe that labour have to be quite radical . A separate party for Scotland? A closer policy alignment in areas where bodies like the cbi are sympathetic? A strong policy towards a John Lewis/ co op approach to business and worker involvement? Somehow they've got to appeal to a sizeable percentage of people south of Nottingham. They probably have to become more Tory like in their realism/ cynicism/
Ruthlessness. I am convinced that Blair was so successful precisely because he out Toried the Tories, by being utterly cynical and ruthless

Utterly uninspiring bunch
Being dragged to the right (other than Corbyn who won't win)
No personality, no compelling vision, no compelling narrative..
No chance of Labour winning in the next 10 years

Quoted from forza ivano

All sound arguments, but labour aren't seen as having the answers. Better the devil you know etc etc. plus there's the argument that God knows what state we'd have been in had balls n milliband had been in charge.
I'd disagree about the jobs.there are plenty of decent jobs about, it's just that it so heavily skewed towards the already fully employed south east. One could also disagree about the quality of work. Is working in a supermarket, in a warm dry environment , with usually overtime and a pension and staff discount available, so much worse than a boring repetitive factory line job?
It maybe that labour have to be quite radical . A separate party for Scotland? A closer policy alignment in areas where bodies like the cbi are sympathetic? A strong policy towards a John Lewis/ co op approach to business and worker involvement? Somehow they've got to appeal to a sizeable percentage of people south of Nottingham. They probably have to become more Tory like in their realism/ cynicism/
Ruthlessness. I am convinced that Blair was so successful precisely because he out Toried the Tories, by being utterly cynical and ruthless

The success of the south-east over the past few decades is down mostly to the re-inflation of the housing market and (of course), the shocking imbalance of government investment and spending in this country. All well and good for people down there (but for the millions who now have no hope of ever owning a home or finding reliable social housing in the way their parents could), but what about the other 70% of the English population, not to mention the Welsh and the Scots? Some areas in the East of England and East Midlands are doing reasonably well, but the rest of us are struggling in general. Here in N.E. Lincs, WHSmith in Freshney Place is going to shut soon, no doubt in part down to the increasing use of Internet shopping, but I went to FP the other day and was surprised to see how many other shops there are empty. It's rumoured that Next will be the next to leave the centre. When the major shopping centre of the area is stuggling so badly, this is a good indication that the economy here is still suffering in the aftermath of the recession. We've seen little even of the weak recovery around here.

Funny you should mention how good supermarket jobs are:

http://metro.co.uk/2015/04/13/.....-1bn-a-year-5148380/

Pay for many of their workers is so low (and below the living wage) that they rely on benefit payments from the government to top them up. Also, don't expect the supermarket pension schemes (to those workers who actually receive them) to last much longer:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/fin.....on-supermarkets.html

Morrisons closed down their schemes earlier this year, I understand, following a growing trend in struggling businesses.

Service jobs are all well and good but actually producing stuff in factories gives you the opportunity to strengthen your economy through exports. Our balance of trade is just about the worst it has ever been so that is our money flowing out of our economy and to overseas competitors. Despite Osborne's "March of the Makers" speech back in 2011, nothing has changed and we're reliant on services and finance.

Personally, I think Blair (and Brown) were very centrist politicians who enacted mostly sensible economic policies (other than PFI) and actually invested in schools, hospitals, infrastructure etc which much needed as the previous Conservative government had let it all rot away on their watch, something the current bunch seem to be happy to continue:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5652c79c-ccae-11e4-b94f-00144feab7de.html#axzz3dOcTdMa0

I think the FT has a paywall but I've registered with them and you get a few free articles a month. To run down the article, government investment in infrastructure dropped by a third between 2009/10 and 2013/14, investment in schools dropped by 55% (!), Communities and Local Government’s capital spending (mostly on housing) dropped by 62% (!!) in this period. Bear in mind that this isn't just new builds, it's also maintenance.

The policies of Blair/Brown and those proposed by Miliband had barely a homosexual paper between them yet Blair had the backing of Murdoch's media empire whereas "Red Ed" Miliband faced years of baseless attacks from them claiming his policies were practically marxist! The lurch to the right by the Tories is clearly aimed at destroying the state sector and potential 'leaders' such as Kendall seem happy to follow them in that direction which can only be bad.

The baby boomers who have grabbed most of the wealth in this country are retiring in ever-increasing numbers but it doesn't seem that anybody is considering how we are going to pay for their care in the future. We've got an aging population and will inevitably need to spend more and more on healthcare and social care in future years, but it doesn't seem that anybody on the right is considering anything about this - they are actively encouraging these people to withdraw their money from their pensions with Osborne announcing yesterday plans to remove financial penalties for doing so. Great for the pensioners who can spend all their money on cruises and the like (no doubt plenty will be put into property, making the market even worse for the young), but what about the rest of us who will need to fund much of their care in later life?

Personally, I reckon we're on the brink at the moment, a tipping point at which the viability of the post-war social contract will stand or fall. Unfortunately, I fear you are correct that Labour will struggle to get into power for the next term or two as the whole game is rigged against them (or if they do, they will be so far to the right that the status quo will practically remain) and I can't see any way that the current Tory policies won't lead us over the edge to disaster in the future. Perhaps not in the next decade, but certainly soon thereafter.  

Think I'm going to have to take a break from these bloody polemics as they are just taking up too much time! If only the new footy season would get here sooner, I'd have something else to think about.

i come back to my point that your arguments are lucid and make a lot of sense, however are they arguments that the general population will 'get', understand and respond positively to? your point about PFI is a case in point.probably one of the most disastrous and financially ruinous ideas ever promulgated, yet who gives  a damn about it? tories don't bother attacking labour on it because they know the voters don't understand or care about it. they do care about things like immigration and crime, which is why the tories make such a big thing about it.
it just seems the things labour and the unions hold dear are things from a bygone era.what are the unions for? being part of Europe and having the EU dictate to us better working conditions, environmental standards,working time directive human rights etc etc have largely ensured that the general population  are in a much better position than they were 30 years ago ,but in so doing they have made large parts of the unions remit redundant. i come back to construction - the industry now is hugely regulated, much safer, more professional, less sexist and racist and a much more comfortable place to work. Who's most responsible? I'd argue it's Europe.
People and circumstances have changed.i don't think many people think they will have a job for life - they are used to change. labour has to find what modern day people want; trouble is they may find that very uncomfortable because it takes them so far away from what they were founded for. maybe they need to look at the social democrat parties in Europe or the professional unions/staff associations in the Uk.
ps one last thing - the manchester power house project is the cynical Tories at their best - driving a wedge into labour's heartland. divide and rule etc. Manchester gets everything, it becomes less labour and more Tory (it's already happening) everyone else in the north has to take the scraps from Manchester's table, unless of course they decide to take the Manchester route and cosy up to Osborne..... I think the whole project is utterly brilliant in a political sense and i take my hat off to whoever thought it up.it's a masterstroke

Well, PFI was stupid, but wasn't exactly that disastrous. Kept a few % points off the debt to GDP ratio which is neither here nor there in the grand scheme of things. A Tory policy taken up with gusto by New Labour and continued (albeit to a lower degree) by Osborne:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2011/apr/18/george-osborne-backs-pfi-projects

Even more stupid that Osborne has continued with it when government borrowing costs are at a record low, but then we shouldn't expect any sense from him.

Your point about the unions is an interesting one. The right-wing in the UK (and US) claim that unions are bad bad bad in every conceivable respect and this is why they continue to attack them, whilst at the same time penalising the poorest workers in society with regressive VAT increases, reductions in the benefits that top up their wages and housing benefit that enables them to live in an inflated housing market.

What about Germany, the strongest economy in Europe? Well, in the 1980s, instead of attempting to destroy the unions, the Germans took the view that strong unions are good for the country and this remains the case. Doesn't seem to have gone too badly for them, does it? Productivity high, social welfare high, workers rights high. In fact, you simply don't see the union-bashing over there that is so prevalent from the right-wing politicians over here and relations between political parties and the unions are very good. Perhaps this is because their PR electoral system means that pretty much all of the parties over there are very centrist in nature instead of moving towards the more extreme ends of the political spectrum. Also, there doesn't seem to be a dominant right-wing media ruled over by billionaire ideologues over there as you find in the UK and USA. They have better sense than that.

Of course, the corollary of the closeness between the political parties and the unions in Germany is that wages over there are actively supressed in comparison to the levels they should be when compared to the profits made by business. It seems that the German workers have accepted they should earn a lower salary (and are happy to do so due to a generous welfare state backing them up), on the understanding that in the long term, they will all be better off. Of course, things might change if Germany wasn't operating the Eurozone for their own benefit, enjoying a massively undervalued currency which allows them to run huge trade surpluses (which breaks EU regulations!) at the expense of industrial competitors such as Italy.

Back to the UK, you ask what modern day people want. The answer is the same as it always has been - health, relative wealth and happiness. The issue is that due to the enormous influence of the media in this country, people are often voting against their best interests. When your newspaper is telling you what are fundamentally lies day after day, why wouldn't you believe it, especially when your only other source of news is the BBC which either isn't willing or isn't capable of pointing out the dishonesty? The whole demonisation of people receiving benefits is a good case in point. If you believe the media-led narrative, the whole country is just full of slackers refusing to work and sitting around smoking and drinking at the tax payer's expense. In reality this is nothing like the case. Sure, there's a tiny minority who are like this but the clever policies of the ideologically-motivated politicians hit not just these, but the ill, the unemployed and the generally impoverished. Like using a hammer to try and heal a scratch.

Oh, and it is certainly no coincidence that all of the policies put forward by the right over the past few decades lead to a greater proportion of the pot heading to the richest in society.

As long as our media is controlled by foreign and non-domiciled billionaires, we're going to struggle to have a fair and just society, but how do you stop it when governments of all stripes have been in their pockets for much of the past 30 years?

Incidentally, I don't entirely buy into your view of the "Northern Powerhouse" plan particularly. We know Osborne is a schemeing fecker but I'm not convinced that even he is as machiavellian as that. He probably thinks the whole region will benefit (though to a lesser degree than Manchester) which will lead to more Tory votes. You're not wrong in thinking that pretty much he cares about is votes, however!

Well after watching the leadership debate this morning with Andrew Neil, got to say what an absolute shower of excrement these clowns are, the Torys must be rubbing their hands together,

Cringy Cooper was an absolute car crash the worse by some mile, comes across as totally in denial and a bare faced liar.

body bags Burnham no substance no radical plans same old left views that where rejected completely last month, I wish someone would tell him that if he doesn't want to be in the west minister bubble then a future prime minister is probably not the job for him.

Comrade Corbyn not a clue just as expected wants the state to control everyone and everything total fantasy, and surprisingly very short tempered not the cuddly old socialist I was told to expect.

Kendal won the debate she's the only one with some sense of reality, the problem for her she's not to clever as she's clearly in the wrong party if she wants to cut the deficit, slash the welfare and control immigration.

Quoted from barralad

Is that really entirely what happened though? Labour were massacred in Scotland for not being left-wing enough. The Tories targetted the Lib Dems in the south of England-areas that have never been Labour heartlands to great effect. True they lost marginals in the East/West Midlands they should've won but a key factor in that was the defection of Labour voters to UKIP -a strange sort of rejection of the left wing option.

Whoever the next leader is has the hardest task of any Labour leader in certainly my lifetime.

I haven't decided who to vote for yet only that it won't be the God-awful Kendall...

I used to like ehr when she was in "The good life" Politics are sh1te though.

Well as a Tory, I'm loving the spectacle of Labour making a complete pig's ear of this.  I haven't decided yet, but might even join so I can vote for Corbyn!

The way I see it, is that you can take two views on the way forward for Labour.  One, is that they need to recover confidence in their ability to run an economy, stop being so anti-business and appeal more to middle England.  The other, is that there are millions of left-leaning voters who stayed at home or voted SNP, who can be persuaded out to vote Labour if only they ran on a radical populist socialist platform.

If you agree with the first diagnosis, you vote for Liz Kendall.  If you agree with the second, you vote for Jeremy Corbyn.  Burnham and Cooper are just two career politicians who want to carry on the Miliband regime with a new face.  They're the "one more heave" candidates.

Now I don't know loads about the Labour party, but it does seem to me that their members care more about ideological purity than winning.  They're too idealistic and put up with leaders who aren't up to snuff for too long.  The Tory Party on the other hand, has perfected a ruthless knack of picking winners, or at least of giving dud leaders the boot once they're deemed a liability.  The Labour party of teachers, social workers and idealists just tend to suffer fools gladly.  Your average local Tory party on the other hand, is packed with hard-headed businesspeople, ex military officers and generally ruthless b@stards.

Therefore, while Labour ought to pick Kendall if they want to win, will end up chickening out and going for one of the dullards, probably Burnham, who will win after picking up the lion's share of Jeremy Corbyn's second preferences.

Quoted from HackneyHaddock

Well as a Tory, I'm loving the spectacle of Labour making a complete pig's ear of this.  I haven't decided yet, but might even join so I can vote for Corbyn!

The way I see it, is that you can take two views on the way forward for Labour.  One, is that they need to recover confidence in their ability to run an economy, stop being so anti-business and appeal more to middle England.  The other, is that there are millions of left-leaning voters who stayed at home or voted SNP, who can be persuaded out to vote Labour if only they ran on a radical populist socialist platform.

If you agree with the first diagnosis, you vote for Liz Kendall.  If you agree with the second, you vote for Jeremy Corbyn.  Burnham and Cooper are just two career politicians who want to carry on the Miliband regime with a new face.  They're the "one more heave" candidates.

Now I don't know loads about the Labour party, but it does seem to me that their members care more about ideological purity than winning.  They're too idealistic and put up with leaders who aren't up to snuff for too long.  The Tory Party on the other hand, has perfected a ruthless knack of picking winners, or at least of giving dud leaders the boot once they're deemed a liability.  The Labour party of teachers, social workers and idealists just tend to suffer fools gladly.  Your average local Tory party on the other hand, is packed with hard-headed businesspeople, ex military officers and generally ruthless b@stards.

Therefore, while Labour ought to pick Kendall if they want to win, will end up chickening out and going for one of the dullards, probably Burnham, who will win after picking up the lion's share of Jeremy Corbyn's second preferences.

I'm a Labour supporter but I agree with plenty that you say. I am not particularly following the leadership contest as I believe whoever wins has no chance of becoming PM and I don't have any affiliation with any of the candidates.

Where I really agree with you is your assertion that lots of Labour supporters don't seem to care about winning elections. I've read so much trash about principles being more important but what kind of principle is it to position yourself where you will never have the power to achieve anything or make society fairer. Blair copulated it up with the wars and it's pretty impossible to look beyond them but by making the party electable he achieved lots of good. I'd have liked to see him go further and be less in thrall to big business but he achieved more than Corbyn or Burnham ever have or will.

I think there is lots of room to the centre as the Tories lurch right. I think there is room for a party that encourages and supports business but still ensures staff are treated fairly. I think people should be allowed to be ambitious and socially mobile but I think when they die a decent chunk should go to the state which has created the condition in which they could thrive. I think people who want mass nationalisation of industry and businesses to be effectively crippled by trade unions are living in the past.

I think you're right Rodley.  Lots of Labour people don't realise just how much traditional Labour stuff the Blair government got through:  NMW, Tax Credits, Maternity leave, a decent record on primary education and record healthcare investment.  So much of what they did has been accepted by the Tories.  Blair was a million times better a Labour figure than Tony Benn, Foot and Kinnock combined for the simple reason he WON.  Those other three, for all the romanticism, gifted the country to Mrs Thatcher.

I really think someone like Kendall, with Umunna, Dan Jarvis and Simon Danczuck around her, could make a centrist pitch that people would go for, and give us a run for our money.

Tax credits may have been brought in by New Labour, but aren't a socialist policy and they have plenty of problems, some discussed in that tax credit thread on this forum.

Ultimately, they have ended up as a subsidy to business (such as supermarkets) which depresses wages. A much higher minimum wage (a 'proper' living wage) would have been a much better idea but can you imagine the howls of complaint from the right-wing media and business if this had been brought in by a Labour government? The fact that there has barely been a squeak of complaint about Osborne's plans to raise the minimum wage shows just how polarised the views of these organisations really are. Just as long as the 'scroungers' (who barely exist) are punished, they are happy.

The Labour party is in chaos at the moment, that's for sure, possibly as unelectable as the Tories had become by the end of the 1990s and whoever wins the leadership contest will have a struggle on their hands to unite the party. The big difference is that the current Tory regime is absolutely maniacal in their beliefs and plans and are pushing through punitive legislation which even Thatcher wouldn't have considered as acceptable.

As an example, here's the government's own views on what the Welfare bill which has just passed will lead to:

http://www.theguardian.com/soc.....ernment-figures-show

We're the 6th wealthiest country on the planet yet we've just passed a bill which will impoverish hundreds of thousands of children, single mothers and the young disproportionately whilst at the same time more money is being given back to the wealthy through cuts in inheritance tax and pensioners are becoming ever better-off through their triple-locked pensions. This coming when real wages still haven't recovered to pre-recession levels. We're all in it together, right? Un-frigging-believable.

I'm amazed anybody is proud to call themselves a Tory. I'd be ashamed.

As for the Labour party (of which I have never been a member), they need to give themselves a kick up the rear to become an effective opposition. God only knows what the state of the country will be in another 5 years.

As I've noted elsewhere, Osborne's published plans to take the economy into surplus rely on a huge increase in the private debt to higher levels than before the recession! It is expected that the Inheritance Tax cuts will lead to further inflation of housing prices so the next collapse and recession can't be too far away and is likely to be more painful than the last. Absolute and complete madness economically. Will anybody who is a self-professed Tory on this board defend this record, I wonder? What do they expect to gain longer-term?

Had to laugh at ex-military officers being hard nosed sorts who don't take excrement. Clearly never worked with some of these "leaders" of men.

In addition to that far too many of them don't even know their workforce (five or six section bosses and only one has taken the time to learn my first name and I've only ever worked in sections of 40ish people) so how can they be relied upon to know what is good for communities up and down the country?

Quoted from HackneyHaddock

Well as a Tory, I'm loving the spectacle of Labour making a complete pig's ear of this.  I haven't decided yet, but might even join so I can vote for Corbyn!

The way I see it, is that you can take two views on the way forward for Labour.  One, is that they need to recover confidence in their ability to run an economy, stop being so anti-business and appeal more to middle England.  The other, is that there are millions of left-leaning voters who stayed at home or voted SNP, who can be persuaded out to vote Labour if only they ran on a radical populist socialist platform.

If you agree with the first diagnosis, you vote for Liz Kendall.  If you agree with the second, you vote for Jeremy Corbyn.  Burnham and Cooper are just two career politicians who want to carry on the Miliband regime with a new face.  They're the "one more heave" candidates.

Now I don't know loads about the Labour party, but it does seem to me that their members care more about ideological purity than winning.  They're too idealistic and put up with leaders who aren't up to snuff for too long.  The Tory Party on the other hand, has perfected a ruthless knack of picking winners, or at least of giving dud leaders the boot once they're deemed a liability.  The Labour party of teachers, social workers and idealists just tend to suffer fools gladly.  Your average local Tory party on the other hand, is packed with hard-headed businesspeople, ex military officers and generally ruthless b@stards.

Therefore, while Labour ought to pick Kendall if they want to win, will end up chickening out and going for one of the dullards, probably Burnham, who will win after picking up the lion's share of Jeremy Corbyn's second preferences.

I'm ignoring the text between the highlighted bold words and have to say, you've summed them up perfectly!  

Quoted from FishOutOfWater

I'm ignoring the text between the highlighted bold words and have to say, you've summed them up perfectly!  

Very true!

Seriously though, Labour nominating Jeremy Corbyn is a joke.  It would be like the Tories picking Bill Cash, John Redwood or Peter Bone.  Labour are just going through the stages of grief, but are stuck in denial.  They're blaming everyone for their hammering but themselves:  it's the media, the foreign-owned press, big business, small business, gerrymandering, Tony Blair, Maggie Thatcher.  Blame everyone else first instead of listening.  Labour had a winning formula with Tony Blair and it delivered 13 years of European-style social democratic government.  The fact that the only candidate in the race who seems to recognise that is running dead last shows you that Labour members care more about being right and going on protest marches than they do about winning elections and actually doing stuff.

Corbyn entered the competition as a stalking horse and, judging by some of the crap we've heard coming out of the other candidates, this was a good thing. If they are all reading from the same hymnsheet, what exactly is the point of the contest?

If you think Corbyn's left-wing credentials make him a joke, then why even have a Labour Party? If, as the appalling Kendall wants, Labour chases the Tories towards the right, there will be nobody to oppose the bad and divisive policies currently being enacted by Osborne. Harman's idea to abstain from opposing the 'Welfare Bill' for political reasons was completely nuts - if you're the opposition, you should oppose bad legislation. As for the left vs right view, if you ignore all the "Red Ed" bullshit you read in the media and look at the actual policies of the two Eds before the last election (such as they were), they were actually centre-right, not wildly left-wing. After all, they had decided to support austerity (still economically illiterate at the current time) and had promised to run a surplus though at a later date than Osborne's latest claim (which will be missed again, of course). That obviously didn't work (and why should it?). There wasn't enough to differentiate them from the Tories and the scare tactics of the right-wing media helped to do the rest.

What Labour need to do is become an effective opposition. As I've noted elsewhere the idea of 'expansionary austerity' which the Tories ran on back in 2010 has failed completely and totally and they've now seamlessly (and without admitting it) segued into the claim that a smaller state and lower taxes and welfare are required. Osborne's plans as reviewed by the OBR assume that increased household debt is what will produce this surplus. How mad is that, eh? He is claiming that prudence is required for government but plans for us all to borrow more money to balance the books, most likely through further inflation of the already massively overblown housing market! Why haven't we heard this stuff from the Labour party, the opposition? It doesn't even seem to me that they've tried to inform the electorate about this?

Kendall's view seems to be, that the electorate believe something so you should shape your policy around this, even if it is not true. No, what you should do is inform the electorate what is actually the reality and try to debunk the myths which have become so prevalent. This is where the two Eds failed so miserably. Failing to debunk the lies over the past 5 years that overspending caused the crash back in 2007, they allowed the Tories (and their LibDem lackeys) to blame them for pretty much anything which occurred in the economy! Absolutely nuts then and even more baffling now.

Right now, they should be pointing out that the 'Welfare Bill' which has just passed almost unopposed through parliament will lead to millions of low-paid workers becoming worse off. Heck, the fact that some of the lowest-paid will be facing an effective tax rate of 48% on additional earnings is absolutely shocking and completely the opposite of Osborne's bullshit claims that they are trying to make work pay. They should be pointing out that Osborne's claims about welfare are not true and that the 'savings' in the bill which will take money out of the pockets of three quarters of a million families are less than the government is giving away to the wealthy through the changes in the Inheritance Tax thresholds. That's right, money directly taken from some of the poorest in our society and given to the wealthiest 6%.

Defend that, I dare you.

Hey Maringer why are you not an MP? You could be challanging for the labour leadership by now, you make running the country sound oh sooo simple and you even have the all answer to everything with your vast researched knowledge. Must say your wasted in the public sector( just a hunch)

Like you to look at the tables in the link regarding minimum pay and hear your comment, because it looks to me it's only the family's with 1 working parent that will be worse off ( and yes I agree this isn't fair) but it would encourage the partner that's out of work to seek employment.

As for for the second table it's clearly showing that the family will be much better off with the wage increase.

http://www.smf.co.uk/will-the-new-living-wage-make-up-for-the-cuts-to-tax-credits/

Quoted from Grim74

Hey Maringer why are you not an MP? You could be challanging for the labour leadership by now, you make running the country sound oh sooo simple and you even have the all answer to everything with your vast researched knowledge. Must say your wasted in the public sector( just a hunch)

You know what, with every post I read of yours, it becomes clearer and clearer what a complete cretin you are. We're almost done, I'm pleased to say, because I've had enough of your childish and snide little insults as you completely fail to address the points I try to make.

However, I note you've actually posted something worthwhile for a change. Well done. Good on you.

I'll reply to that in a different message.

Tony Blair's on the telly today looking slimy and telling everyone were they are going wrong. Of course he's more than qualified to do so what with his ultra successful recent form of envoying peace across the middle east.

Quoted from Grim74

Like you to look at the tables in the link regarding minimum pay and hear your comment, because it looks to me it's only the family's with 1 working parent that will be worse off ( and yes I agree this isn't fair) but it would encourage the partner that's out of work to seek employment.

As for for the second table it's clearly showing that the family will be much better off with the wage increase.

http://www.smf.co.uk/will-the-new-living-wage-make-up-for-the-cuts-to-tax-credits/

So the families with just one working parent will be the ones who suffer most? You are, perhaps, aware that there are almost 3 million single parent families in the UK at the moment?

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/family-demography/families-and-households/2013/info-uk-households.html

So that's around 3 million families who tend to be amongst the poorest who are likely to be hit the hardest? Brilliant stuff, Osborne.

Also, note the SMF figures you list are for people who are in full-time employment. What about the part-time workers? Many of the jobs created over the past 5 years or so are part-time posts and many of the people in part time jobs aren't able to get full-time jobs or more hours. These are the ones who will suffer the most. An article with some underemployment statistics:

http://www.independent.co.uk/n.....ployed-10211368.html

So that's another 1.75 million or so workers who have the potential to be hit. Obviously many of the single parents will be among these so they aren't two entirely distinct groups, but it's certainly not good for them.

This probably explains why the IFS has been particularly critical of the budget and it thinks that 13 million families will lose out to some degree, with 3 million losing over £1,000 per year:

http://www.theguardian.com/bus.....0-worse-off-says-ifs

If you don't want to read the Guardian article, take it straight from the horses mouth:

http://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publications/budgets/Budgets%202015/Summer/opening_remarks.pdf

Part of the conclusion:

Quoted Text

Given the array of benefit cuts it is not surprising that the changes overall are regressive – taking much more from poorer households than richer ones. Looking over the period of the consolidation as a whole, poorer households have done worse than those in the middle and upper middle parts of the income distribution though it remains the case that the some of the biggest losers have been those right at the very top of the income distribution.

Even if you want to cut tax credits, dumping on the poor in this manner is just disgraceful. An increase in the minimum wage is a great idea but giving with one hand and taking more with the other is a bizarre way of going about things.

Quoted from Manchester Mariner

Tony Blair's on the telly today looking slimy and telling everyone were they are going wrong. Of course he's more than qualified to do so what with his ultra successful recent form of envoying peace across the middle east.

He really is a despicable piece of shite.

It looks increasingly as though Blair's 'success' simply came about due to the incredible unpopularity of the Tories and their years in the wilderness after 1997. After all, Blair lost 3 million voters during his first term and another million in the next. The fact that the Tories lost over a million more votes between 1997 and 2001 shows how unpopular they were at the time and they barely increased their vote in 2005 either.

It makes you wonder if ten years with Labour out of power will be enough to destroy the Tories once again. My worry is that, if the Tories manage to squeeze their way back into power in 2020, just what sort of a state the country will be in by 2025. I truly shudder to think.

Quoted from Manchester Mariner

Tony Blair's on the telly today looking slimy and telling everyone were they are going wrong. Of course he's more than qualified to do so what with his ultra successful recent form of envoying peace across the middle east.

To be fair, for all the war-mongering he's the only Labour leader to win a General Election in the past 40 years and he won three of them. I'm not sure why he was considered qualified to be a middle-east peace envoy but I think he's pretty well qualified to at least have his views on the future of the Labour party listened to.

Quoted from Maringer

So the families with just one working parent will be the ones who suffer most? You are, perhaps, aware that there are almost 3 million single parent families in the UK at the moment?

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/family-demography/families-and-households/2013/info-uk-households.html

So that's around 3 million families who tend to be amongst the poorest who are likely to be hit the hardest? Brilliant stuff, Osborne.

Also, note the SMF figures you list are for people who are in full-time employment. What about the part-time workers? Many of the jobs created over the past 5 years or so are part-time posts and many of the people in part time jobs aren't able to get full-time jobs or more hours. These are the ones who will suffer the most. An article with some underemployment statistics:

http://www.independent.co.uk/n.....ployed-10211368.html

So that's another 1.75 million or so workers who have the potential to be hit. Obviously many of the single parents will be among these so they aren't two entirely distinct groups, but it's certainly not good for them.

This probably explains why the IFS has been particularly critical of the budget and it thinks that 13 million families will lose out to some degree, with 3 million losing over £1,000 per year:

http://www.theguardian.com/bus.....0-worse-off-says-ifs

If you don't want to read the Guardian article, take it straight from the horses mouth:

http://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publications/budgets/Budgets%202015/Summer/opening_remarks.pdf

Part of the conclusion:



Even if you want to cut tax credits, dumping on the poor in this manner is just disgraceful. An increase in the minimum wage is a great idea but giving with one hand and taking more with the other is a bizarre way of going about things.

I do take your point on single parents but how many of the 3m single parents are receiving child maintenance, do we have any credible estimates?
As an example my sister in law recently split from her husband and left the family home, she's a mother of two children working part time topped with benefits, she's moved in to a nice 3 bedroom house thanks to houseing benefits,
And she also receives a large monthly unaccounted payment from her ex as child maintenance/support.
And in her own words she's never had it so good, so I'm sure she and others in her situation will get by after the cuts.


I seem to of upset you Mariner, I apologise if that's the case, but you haven't exactly been warm to me, you jump on pretty much anything I have to say and try to shoot me down with an avalanche of stats and figures which are not always factual, you even go as far to call me a bullshitter!

I have taken more interest in this election since listening by chance to Jeremy Corbyn,

He is my type of man, caring for the less fortunate,

Another reason is Blair says he is the wrong man,

Ken Livingston ( red Ken ) said in all the years he had worked with Corbyn he never heard him say a word he did not believe in,

Not like the other 4 candidates who will say anything to get a vote.

Comrad Corbyn would have us all living in state housing and driving around in Lada's,
Seriously now I've heard him speak and I can see why the left fall for him he's a likeable old boy  like an old version of citizen smith power to the people and all that.

As much as I don't like Blair he is right on the money with Corbyn , after all No true lefty has won an election for years and this will continue for years to come.

Maybe no lefty has won an election for years,

BUT

None of the other 4 will win an election ever,

Ken Livingstone is an interesting example actually, because he really was a populist socialist leader of the GLC and later, a more mellowed out, moderate Mayor.  Ken got reelected though because he was a pragmatist; using business to fund his schemes and concentrating on publicly-owned transport.  I think it helped that he was implementing municipal policies in a strongly-Labour city.  Corbyn doesn't have that luxury and would struggle to appeal to enough people in the marginals, though I find him to be more honest and authentic than the others.

Quoted from Grim74

I do take your point on single parents but how many of the 3m single parents are receiving child maintenance, do we have any credible estimates?
As an example my sister in law recently split from her husband and left the family home, she's a mother of two children working part time topped with benefits, she's moved in to a nice 3 bedroom house thanks to houseing benefits,
And she also receives a large monthly unaccounted payment from her ex as child maintenance/support.
And in her own words she's never had it so good, so I'm sure she and others in her situation will get by after the cuts.

I seem to of upset you Mariner, I apologise if that's the case, but you haven't exactly been warm to me, you jump on pretty much anything I have to say and try to shoot me down with an avalanche of stats and figures which are not always factual, you even go as far to call me a bullshitter!

Any stats and figures I post to support my points are factual or based on academic research. The problem is that you tend to disregard anything for which you don't like the source. For example, I posted the academic research (by respected business school) which posited the reporting of the BBC gave a lot more air time to the Conservative Party. You immediately poo-pooed it! It was a study from a respected business school commissioned by the BBC Trust with all data and methodology published. Your only argument against it was a critique of the study by a right-wing anti-BBC think tank which was immediately rejected as nonsense by the report's authors. Don't you think that the right-wing press would have been all over it like a rash if there was any real impropriety involved? I certainly do.

It's good that your sister is doing OK and I'm sure certain other single parent families are fine as well, but this report would indicate that two thirds of single parents in 2012 weren't receiving maintenance:

http://www.gingerbread.org.uk/content/1880/Why-child-maintenance-is-crucial-for-single-parents

Two million or so, then, many of whom will be badly hit by the cuts in tax credits.

I apologise for being snippy earlier but I've become used to glib replies from you which don't respond to many of my points. You surely have to admit that it seems you are fishing around for figures which prove the cuts to benefits won't be as punishing as most of us think? I've not seen you actively defend them as yet or explain why they will be of benefit to the economy and the millions of people affected by them?

Osborne uses the narrative that the cuts will force the 'shirkers' into work or persuade part-time workers to take on more work. This completely ignores the fact that there simply aren't all that many jobs out there. Underemployment is rife and, of course, many single parents don't have anybody to look after their kids.

On a slightly different note, it will be interesting to see what comes of the pledge to provide 30 hours of free childcare per week for 3 and 4 year olds. Last I heard, the childcare industry was noting that the government plans vastly underestimated the cost of provision and the figures just didn't add up. Will be interesting to see what the review promised for this summer discovers and whether funding changes.

As for the benefits, I'm certainly no expert as I've never had to claim any benefits personally, though I was lucky enough receive a free university education, unlike the current kids. Poor illegitimates.

As I'm not an expert, I'll go with the analysis of the IFS which reckons 13 million families will be worse off due to these changes. That's over 70% of families, if my calculations are correct. Still, at least the wealthiest 4% (not 6% from my earlier typo) can pass on more money to their kids now, so lucky them!

Quoted from Grim74

Comrad Corbyn would have us all living in state housing and driving around in Lada's,
Seriously now I've heard him speak and I can see why the left fall for him he's a likeable old boy  like an old version of citizen smith power to the people and all that.

As much as I don't like Blair he is right on the money with Corbyn , after all No true lefty has won an election for years and this will continue for years to come.

For all the right-wing hysteria about Corbyn, he seems pretty reasonable to me. Many of his views are shared by a majority of the electorate if the polling is to be believed:

http://www.independent.co.uk/n.....e-with-10407148.html

Earlier today he discussed his economic views to some economists and trade unionists and here's the only report I've found about it.

http://www.theguardian.com/pol.....ected-prime-minister

Looks like moderate left-wing policy to me there, no radical socialist plans or anything worrying for the man on the street. Slightly refreshing to have to hear about this second hand rather than having the speech published in a newspaper before it has even been made but then, on the other hand, he needs to disseminate his views to the wider public.

I disagree with him about the Nuclear deterrent which I feel still has a role to play in the current climate but think he's mostly on the ball in other respects.

I just voted for Jezza as he makes me smile
I cant wait for him to be leader of the latest laughing stock Labour front bench

Quoted from grimps

I just voted for Jezza as he makes me smile
I cant wait for him to be leader of the latest laughing stock Labour front bench

So you're admitting you're morally bankrupt, eh?

Wish I believed in karma.

So are the majority of the British public

Quoted from Maringer

I apologise for being snippy earlier but I've become used to glib replies from you which don't respond to many of my points. You surely have to admit that it seems you are fishing around for figures which prove the cuts to benefits won't be as punishing as most of us think? I've not seen you actively defend them as yet or explain why they will be of benefit to the economy and the millions of people affected by them?!

I'm not fishing around at all but I am in favour of the cuts especially to the benefits, I have stated the cuts are to deep especially the working tax credits for single parents this is wrong in my opinion its the aid budget that needs slashing more than anything but it's not going to happen you win some you lose some.

Quoted from Maringer

This completely ignores the fact that there simply aren't all that many jobs out there.

http://www.cipd.co.uk/pm/peopl.....-finds-analysis.aspx

Quoted from Grim74

I'm not fishing around at all but I am in favour of the cuts especially to the benefits, I have stated the cuts are to deep especially the working tax credits for single parents this is wrong in my opinion its the aid budget that needs slashing more than anything but it's not going to happen you win some you lose some.

I agree with this - this country keeps, arbitrarily, giving it's money to overseas causes (which usually are outside the control of this country), when it struggles to look after its own interests properly.

We can quite easily afford the aid budget and we can also afford the welfare payments. We are the 6th richest nation on earth after all. We just have a government who choose to redistribute wealth to the top and demonise the poor and needy. In fact, we wouldn't have any poor and needy citizens if the government were not so divisive.

Have a look at how much tax avoidance goes on if you want to know how the government can balance the books. The cabinet is full of the very wealthy. They only know greed and corruption.

The government's spending £93 billion a year on corporate welfare / tax breaks / subsidies to businesses (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jul/07/corporate-welfare-a-93bn-handshake), but you never hear any calls from these prejudiced bigots to cut down on that budget, or take bigger steps to clamp down on tax avoidance, do you? It's always these supposed 'scroungers' who are to blame.

Corbyn always answers a question when asked this is very refreshing even if you don`t agree with everything he says, politics has been so corrupted by spin and fear of saying the wrong thing that he will get my vote, politics shouldn`t be about worrying what might be popular with the press and spin doctors but,wanting to stand up for policies you believe in.  At least there will be a difference and serious debate if Corbyn is in charge  

Quoted from codcheeky

Corbyn always answers a question when asked this is very refreshing even if you don`t agree with everything he says, politics has been so corrupted by spin and fear of saying the wrong thing that he will get my vote, politics shouldn`t be about worrying what might be popular with the press and spin doctors but,wanting to stand up for policies you believe in.  At least there will be a difference and serious debate if Corbyn is in charge  

Exactly. Stand or fall by what you believe in, not what you think is popular and will get votes.