Who could take over from Ed Miliband?

[Busaholic]

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---[/size]


I sincerely hope not, as you must be of a very great age by now, as the Tory Party (those well-known Irish bandits) were not often heard of in British politics after the passing of The Reform Act of 1832...hock:

I heard on a radio programme that some old scripts of 'All Gas and Gaiters' had been found in an attic and have been published in the form of a book, most episodes having been wiped from tape ages ago.

As for Tories, I find when I type Conversatives on my keyboard it seems to fall foul of an immediate and all-pervasive virus.

 

[northwichcat]

An opinion poll has declared Andy Burham as the overall favourite (36%) with Liz Kendall second (26%), Yvette Cooper third (19%) and unsurprisingly Jeremy Corbyn last (17%.)

It was noted with the under 25s that Kendall is a clear favourite (43%), that Andy Burham has higher support in the North West than in other parts of the country. Burham has more male backing than female backing, the reverse applies with Cooper while Kendall has a pretty even mix.

When people were asked which of the four runners would do most harm to Labour’s election prospects, Corbyn was chosen by 33% of those polled, Cooper by 26%, Burnham by 22% and Kendall by 19%.

 

[Johnuk123]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...fter-failing-to-condemn-the-ira-10442683.html

Jeremy Corbyn has been criticised by families of IRA victims after failing to explicitly condemn the group.

I suppose nobody should be really surprised that this bloke finds it impossible to condem the IRA by name, him being best mates with the 2 leading Sinn Fein mp's.

 

[St Rollox]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...fter-failing-to-condemn-the-ira-10442683.html



I suppose nobody should be really surprised that this bloke finds it impossible to condem the IRA by name, him being best mates with the 2 leading Sinn Fein mp's.

That would fit in with the local Glasgow Labour council by-election candidate who wanted it made legal to sing IRA songs at Celtic Park!!!
He and the four other Labour by-election candidates were laughed out the four seats at the count last Thursday.
Labour's Scottish meltdown continues.
At this rate Scotland will be independent by 2020.

 

[yorksrob]

Labour has always had a confused policy position in terms of Northern Ireland. That said, it is to their credit that they managed to broker the current agreement there, which for its faults, is better than the previous situation.

What worries me is that we are about to enter an important negotiation with the EU which will massively affect the future of the Nation, yet there is currently no left of centre voice trying to steer the conversation. If we're not careful, we're going to end up with a choice between the status quo and some sort of free market Tory panacea.

There are real arguments that the left needs to be making in the renegotiation including

State aid rules and the ability of the country to re-balance the economy towards industry in the North. Whatever did happen to that industrial development Bank promised by the last Government, which Germany seems to be allowed to have, simply on account of having had one previously.

The 'free' property market, and the inability under current EU rules of the country to correct this obvious market failure by rebalancing the housing market in favour of local residents and away from speculators.

The meddling in Nation's rights to decide how public services should be owned and managed.

It would be good if a reinvigorated left could emerge with a more critical negotiating position than the woolly internationalism and free market hocus pocus that characterised 'new' labour's position on the EU.

 

[Robertj21a]

Labour has always had a confused policy position in terms of Northern Ireland. That said, it is to their credit that they managed to broker the current agreement there, which for its faults, is better than the previous situation.

What worries me is that we are about to enter an important negotiation with the EU which will massively affect the future of the Nation, yet there is currently no left of centre voice trying to steer the conversation. If we're not careful, we're going to end up with a choice between the status quo and some sort of free market Tory panacea.

There are real arguments that the left needs to be making in the renegotiation including

State aid rules and the ability of the country to re-balance the economy towards industry in the North. Whatever did happen to that industrial development Bank promised by the last Government, which Germany seems to be allowed to have, simply on account of having had one previously.

The 'free' property market, and the inability under current EU rules of the country to correct this obvious market failure by rebalancing the housing market in favour of local residents and away from speculators.

The meddling in Nation's rights to decide how public services should be owned and managed.

It would be good if a reinvigorated left could emerge with a more critical negotiating position than the woolly internationalism and free market hocus pocus that characterised 'new' labour's position on the EU.

I agree that there needs to be 'a reinvigorated left' as any government needs to be kept in check by an effective opposition. If it's to be a Corbyn-run Left then it rather guarantees that Labour will be unelectable for his period of office. Perhaps that's the best that will come out of the current Labour mess - to be just an effective opposition party in future.

 

[Busaholic]

'Jeremy Corbyn is unelectable' - now who says so? David Cameron has just shown that you can form a majority government when fewer than 25% of the electorate vote for your party. Is it inconceivable that after five years of the present government JC might not find a similar number of people prepared to back whatever policies he and his team come up with as an alternative to the Blue Menace? Of course it's not, and this is why the Tories are running scared of him becoming leader. What interest did the Tory press take in whether Gordon Brown succeeded Tony Blair? None whatsoever as they rightly suspected that under him Labour would never get enough votes to form a majority government. John McDonnell, a more credible guy to lead the party than Corbyn in many ways, wasn't being vilified as a leadership candidate as they were happy to let Labour make the mistake: indeed, being an inveterate reader of at least one right-leaning newspaper, I remember Brown's cause being championed. The only right columnist who came out and said that Brown would never win was Matthew Parris in the Times, and he's always enjoyed being a maverick.

 

[northwichcat]

Potentially I think Corbyn could be the best candidate for Labour to regain voters they've lost to the Green Party and the SNP, which would be enough for Labour to get more voters than the Conservatives. However, I think having Corbyn as leader could result in some voters going to the Lib Dems and some of the less left aligned MPs defecting. The media are suggesting enough defections to form a breakaway party as big as the SDP. I'm not sure a new party as big as the SDP will be formed though.

 

[Robertj21a]

'Jeremy Corbyn is unelectable' - now who says so? David Cameron has just shown that you can form a majority government when fewer than 25% of the electorate vote for your party. Is it inconceivable that after five years of the present government JC might not find a similar number of people prepared to back whatever policies he and his team come up with as an alternative to the Blue Menace? Of course it's not, and this is why the Tories are running scared of him becoming leader. What interest did the Tory press take in whether Gordon Brown succeeded Tony Blair? None whatsoever as they rightly suspected that under him Labour would never get enough votes to form a majority government. John McDonnell, a more credible guy to lead the party than Corbyn in many ways, wasn't being vilified as a leadership candidate as they were happy to let Labour make the mistake: indeed, being an inveterate reader of at least one right-leaning newspaper, I remember Brown's cause being championed. The only right columnist who came out and said that Brown would never win was Matthew Parris in the Times, and he's always enjoyed being a maverick.

Clearly, it's only my personal view that Corbyn would make Labour unelectable. However, if he pursues policies further to the left of Milliband then he will not attract the critical 'middle ground'.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Clearly, it's only my personal view that Corbyn would make Labour unelectable. However, if he pursues policies further to the left of Milliband then he will not attract the critical 'middle ground'.

Ed Milliband's failing was not that he was too far left-wing, but that he provided no alternative economic narrative to the Conservatives. People ended up thinking that austerity was a necessity, and that the party who was going to do the most about it was the Tories.

This idea that Labour need to move to the right is a narrative championed by the Conservatives to encourage Labour to do exactly that, therefore playing more into their hands. So long as Labour were running after the Tories rather than forging their own way, the Tories had the election in the bag.

 

[meridian2]

Ed Milliband's failing was not that he was too far left-wing, but that he provided no alternative economic narrative to the Conservatives. People ended up thinking that austerity was a necessity, and that the party who was going to do the most about it was the Tories.

This idea that Labour need to move to the right is a narrative championed by the Conservatives to encourage Labour to do exactly that, therefore playing more into their hands. So long as Labour were running after the Tories rather than forging their own way, the Tories had the election in the bag.

Credit where credit's due here: you've managed to misrepresent the entire focus of the previous Labour government by (once again) presuming Labour had a 'narrative championed by the right'! The fact of the matter was Labour shot themselves in the foot by the election of Ed Miliband, who took the party too far to the left. How on earth does that send out a 'narrative that champions the Tories'?

 

[TheKnightWho]

Credit where credit's due here: you've managed to misrepresent the entire focus of the previous Labour government by (once again) presuming Labour had a 'narrative championed by the right'! The fact of the matter was Labour shot themselves in the foot by the election of Ed Miliband, who took the party too far to the left. How on earth does that send out a 'narrative that champions the Tories'?

Did Labour challenge the necessity of austerity? Because if you'd read my post, you would have seen my argument was that in not doing so, they just made themselves into Tory-lite, which was exactly what the Tories wanted as it would mean people would simply go the whole hog and vote for them. This is exactly what happened. You would have also noticed I was talking about two different narratives, too, but of course in not reading what I wrote properly you completely missed that.

Instead, your "counter-argument" is saying I'm wrong and asserting yourself correct. There is no argument in your post - it's just a declaration. Funny, for someone that seems determined to make out like I'm incapable of independent thought.

The "fact of the matter" is that Labour's policies were only considered too far to the left because they never challenged austerity in the first place, even though that has been done very successfully elsewhere. Indeed, almost any economist will tell you that cutting spending in a recession is a terrible idea, so it's not like it's an impossible case to make. I don't expect you to agree with me on this, but at this point it's starting to feel like you're determined to call me wrong about everything regardless of what I'm saying which, whilst pretty amusing, is just getting in the way of decent discussion.

 

[meridian2]

But how can we start a 'decent discussion' if you won't address the fundamental point in my first post: where and when did Miliband start to champion Tory policy?

 

[TheKnightWho]

But how can we start a 'decent discussion' if you won't address the fundamental point in my first post: where and when did Miliband start to champion Tory policy?

Did he, or did he not, challenge the necessity of austerity? (That thing I asked in my previous post.) Because that answers your question.

 

[meridian2]

Did he, or did he not, challenge the necessity of austerity? (That thing I asked in my previous post.) Because that answers your question.

He did not challenge anything; why would he? His party failed to take adequate steps to protect banks during the peak of the financial crisis. They (Labour) got us in this mess, why would he want to question the necessity of austerity when his party would do the same as what Cameron is doing now? Austerity is inevitable when the country has overspent so drastically, and the policies of the two mainstream parties have become a very large double-edged sword. Similar but so radically different that it would take a grass-roots reform of Labour to pose a genuine threat come 2020.

 

[TheKnightWho]

He did not challenge anything; why would he? His party failed to take adequate steps to protect banks during the peak of the financial crisis. They (Labour) got us in this mess, why would he want to question the necessity of austerity when his party would do the same as what Cameron is doing now? Austerity is inevitable when the country has overspent so drastically, and the policies of the two mainstream parties have become a very large double-edged sword. Similar but so radically different that it would take a grass-roots reform of Labour to pose a genuine threat come 2020.

So instead of acknowledging what I said, you're going off on a spiel of how austerity is necessary.

That just proves my point that they presented no alternative narrative and just become Tory-lite, which is why people didn't vote for them. You also seem to agree with this by calling them a "double-edged sword".

What, exactly, was your disagreement? Because I'm starting to feel that it's my name and not what I'm saying that's getting you so riled up here.

(On a more serious note of actually challenging what you said: the Labour party did not cause the global financial crisis. It has been Tory policy for far, far longer to simply cut spending and reduce the deficit, and the fact is that there was no special need to cut it at that particular point - this is an ideology stemming from the idea that a small government is good, rather than because of any particular economic need. Indeed, it was a terrible time to do so as it was when the country was in recession as it removes money from the economy and prevents things getting going. Frankly our slow recovery has been down to austerity policies.)

 

[northwichcat]

He did not challenge anything; why would he? His party failed to take adequate steps to protect banks during the peak of the financial crisis. They (Labour) got us in this mess, why would he want to question the necessity of austerity when his party would do the same as what Cameron is doing now?

Cameron and Osborne weren't just not opposing Labour's financial policy, they were actively telling Labour not to increase regulation of the banking sector and to leave it as a free market. It was left as a free market and collapsed!

What some people have missed is the Conservatives are now doing the complete opposite of what they were promoting and voting for pre-May 2010. When Alistair Darling was Chancellor he said the way to get the economy moving was a VAT cut to 15%, Osborne and Cameron voted in favour of the VAT cut. Then after the 2010 General Election Osborne and Cameron criticised the VAT cut as not having much effect and said a VAT rise to 20% was required.

 

[meridian2]

I have no problem with you, KnightWho, and for what it's worth I apologise for ranting at you in the other thread.

I'm just disagreeing with you declaring Miliband a 'champion of Tory policy' as he would've done the same thing and to me, that's not tantamount to 'championing' anything.

 

[TheKnightWho]

I have no problem with you, KnightWho, and for what it's worth I apologise for ranting at you in the other thread.

I'm just disagreeing with you declaring Miliband a 'champion of Tory policy' as he would've done the same thing and to me, that's not tantamount to 'championing' anything.

Thank you.

But the fact is that the policy of austerity *is* a Tory policy, and something Labour only latched onto once they felt it was popular. Labour of 2010 didn't run on an austerity platform at all, and actually Brown has been praised for his work during the crisis which was absolutely not the fault of Labour.

Labour switching to the Tory position, only a bit lighter, has hugely hurt them for reasons I wrote above. If they'd put forward an alternative economic path with confidence, they could've seriously challenged the Tories and made their own party seem like it knew what it was talking about. Unfortunately, by switching to austerity they not only made themselves look weak but also effectively accepted the right-wing idea that they were responsible for the crash due to overspending and a huge debt. Together this meant almost certain defeat for the Labour party.

The idea of austerity is not inherently a bad one, but it has to be done at the right time. During a recession, all it does is remove money from people who have already lost their jobs or have a reduced disposable income (both of which power the economy), and so makes recovery more difficult. In 2013, austerity was effectively reversed by Osborne except in some very high-profile areas such as welfare, and in fact spending was increased on infrastructure and other areas that create jobs. I'm not saying that that increased spending was a bad thing - by no means, it was absolutely the correct thing to do - but that doesn't change the fact that this narrative is not borne out of economic reality, but out of a desire to decrease the size of the state. And we both know who that benefits (clue: not me or you).


EDIT: Oddly enough, I've just found this article which was published today which aptly sums things up.

It has been a catastrophic political blunder not to challenge the myth that Brown’s government caused the crisis and the austerity that followed. The choice, correctly framed by the economist Simon Wren-Lewis, is whether to pretend Osborne’s version of events is true and own up to perceived past mistakes or to contest it.

Pleading guilty seems the easier line to take, but it isn’t. The confession would be brandished by the government for the next five years as proof that Labour should never again be trusted with the public finances.

Instead, Labour needs to start its fightback by rehabilitating the record of the Blair-Brown years, making the point that the purpose of the pre-crisis borrowing was to modernise and improve the NHS and shabby schools. It also needs to challenge the idea that all borrowing at all times is bad. If that were the case, individuals would have to save up the entire asking price for a house rather than buying it on a mortgage and there would be no startup capital to launch businesses.

Accordingly, the idea that “we should live within our means” is consistent with the government running deficits, provided that the borrowing is affordable and the benefits exceed the cost. It is hardly surprising that most voters agreed with the question posed in Labour’s inquest, but that is because it was put in such a way as to get that answer. The result would be different if the question was: “Do you believe that the government should borrow at historically low interest rates to invest in the railways or the NHS if that means it takes longer to balance the books?”

There are plenty of legitimate reasons for Corbyn’s rivals to attack him, for which there is not room in this column, but his approach to austerity is not one of them. Instead, he has come up with a version of the old political maxim – never apologise, never explain – that makes macroeconomic sense and is resonating with Labour supporters. He has explained what he would do – borrow to invest and have no set timetable for deficit reduction – while apologising for the right thing: Labour’s over-lax financial regulation. It is proving a better strategy than apologising for the wrong thing and not explaining.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

He did not challenge anything; why would he? His party failed to take adequate steps to protect banks during the peak of the financial crisis. They (Labour) got us in this mess,

Untrue. Labour did not 'get us in this mess' (although, obviously, as with any Government, there were many things that the Labour Government could with hindsight have done better). The truth is that Labour happened to have the misfortune of being the party in Government when a massive Worldwide recession happened.

why would he want to question the necessity of austerity when his party would do the same as what Cameron is doing now?

Well isn't that TheKnightWho's point? Ed Miliband wasn't questioning austerity because at the election he was offering - basically - austerity-lite, and if I've understood the last few posts in this thread correctly, TheKnightWho is arguing that that's a poor way to attract voters.

Austerity is inevitable when the country has overspent so drastically,

Only if you take Tory propaganda as gospel would you believe either of the propositions in that sentence. Austerity is not inevitable: there are good reasons to believe it actually does more harm than good (by shrinking the economy, thereby making the debt bigger as a proportion of GDP and so making it even harder to pay off). It's also very arguable that the country did not overspend, but that the large deficit in 2010 was the inevitable result of the worldwide recession.

Of course it's very tempting for Conservatives to believe both propositions because it gives them an excuse to cut Government spending, something that many Conservatives wish to do in any case on purely ideological grounds.

 

[muddythefish]

They (Labour) got us in this mess, why would he want to question the necessity of austerity when his party would do the same as what Cameron is doing now? Austerity is inevitable when the country has overspent so drastically, and the policies of the two mainstream parties have become a very large double-edged sword. Similar but so radically different that it would take a grass-roots reform of Labour to pose a genuine threat come 2020.

1. For the umpteenth time, the banks almost caused the economy to collapse until they were bailed out by the Labour government.

2. Austerity was not inevitable; Osborne chose it out of ideological zeal to reduce the size of the state and shove the burden of reducing the deficit on to the poorest.

3. Labour did not overspend. See myriad independent research on the subject.

 

[meridian2]

1. But Labour still turned a blind eye to the mechanics in the City.

2. Austerity IS inevitable in a financial cycle, vis a vis recession-austerity-recovery.

3.Fraser Nelson from the Spectator and various others disagree with you, but it depends wholly on semantics.In terms of the deficit, Labour ran up a huge deficit circa 2006-2008,and around the time of the collapse of Lehman Bros (from Fraser Nelson's blog): 'Brown had run up a deficit of 43%.

 

[muddythefish]

1. Maybe they did and maybe they didn't. But if they had on clamped down on the City's antics I'm sure right wingers such as yourself would have condemned them for doing so as "same old Labour"

One thing is for certain - Osborne and Cameron when in opposition in 2006 were called on the Labour govt to further lighten regulations on the City.

2. Austerity was Osborne's choice which he inflcited on the country as an excuse to attack the state. The US (which had similar fiscal problems) did not go down the austerity path and went for growth - and its recovery has been much stronger and deeper than ours.

3. Fraser Nelson is editor of the Spectator, a right wing magazine. I don't take notice of anything he says. The huge deficit of 2008 onwards was caused the the bailout of the banks and the collapse in tax receipts as result of the recession.

 

[Senex]

3. Fraser Nelson is editor of the Spectator, a right wing magazine. I don't take notice of anything he says.

That's fine, as long as you accept the right of others of us to take no notice of anything that appears in newspapers like The Guardian and The Daily Mirror or magazines like The New Statesman.

 

[muddythefish]

Perhaps I should have said I read his stuff but disagree with it. It's called knowing your enemy.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

3.Fraser Nelson from the Spectator and various others disagree with you, but it depends wholly on semantics.In terms of the deficit, Labour ran up a huge deficit circa 2006-2008,and around the time of the collapse of Lehman Bros (from Fraser Nelson's blog): 'Brown had run up a deficit of 43%.

Well that's a meaningless figure unless you say what it's a % of!

In fact the important figure is the debt as a % of GDP. A quick look at the actual figures shows that between 2006 and 2008 that rose from 36.9% to 38.9%. Yes, that's a rise - which implies there was a net deficit during those years, but it's a pretty insignificant rise by historical standards. In 1997, when Gordon Brown first became Chancellor, debt/GDP was 41.8%, so Gordon Brown's legacy up to 2008 was actually to reduce the national debt/GDP ratio! (Although again, the actual change is historically insignificant). Of course the world recession and the need to rescue certain banks completely changed the picture by 2010, but blaming that on Labour is hard to justify and rather smacks of political opportunism.

I have to say your posts do rather read like you're looking for excuses to blame Labour for bad stuff, irrespective of what the facts are. I do hope that's not the intention.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Perhaps I should have said I read his stuff but disagree with it. It's called knowing your enemy.

While I usually agree with you politically, I would suggest that it's better to agree or disagree with what someone writes according to whether they use correct statistics or facts appropriately, and use reasonable logic and a good understanding of the situation to draw appropriate conclusions; not based on whether you consider that person to be an 'enemy'.

 

[muddythefish]

While I usually agree with you politically, I would suggest that it's better to agree or disagree with what someone writes according to whether they use correct statistics or facts appropriately, and use reasonable logic and a good understanding of the situation to draw appropriate conclusions; not based on whether you consider that person to be an 'enemy'.

Nelson offers opinions based on his political viewpoint - nothing to with facts or statistics. I find him and his ilk useful because they offer me an insight into the thinking on their side of the political fence. Same reason I read the Telegraph and the Mail - I don't agree with their editorial stance but it is important I know what my party if up against. As I said - knowing your enemy.

 

[Senex]

Perhaps I should have said I read his stuff but disagree with it. It's called knowing your enemy.

Which is precisely why I read The Guardian!

 

[meridian2]

Well that's a meaningless figure unless you say what it's a % of!

In fact the important figure is the debt as a % of GDP. A quick look at the actual figures shows that between 2006 and 2008 that rose from 36.9% to 38.9%. Yes, that's a rise - which implies there was a net deficit during those years, but it's a pretty insignificant rise by historical standards. In 1997, when Gordon Brown first became Chancellor, debt/GDP was 41.8%, so Gordon Brown's legacy up to 2008 was actually to reduce the national debt/GDP ratio! (Although again, the actual change is historically insignificant). Of course the world recession and the need to rescue certain banks completely changed the picture by 2010, but blaming that on Labour is hard to justify and rather smacks of political opportunism.

I have to say your posts do rather read like you're looking for excuses to blame Labour for bad stuff, irrespective of what the facts are. I do hope that's not the intention.
.

Just as I'm hoping your posts aren't whitewashing them for the mistakes they made.

 

[muddythefish]

Just as I'm hoping your posts aren't whitewashing them for the mistakes they made.

All governments make mistakes - all the time.