Who could take over from Ed Miliband?

[northwichcat]

I'm not surprised. If I was a member of the Labour Party, on balance and all things considered, I would probably vote for him too - in fact anyone except the useless three who are competing with him, not one seems to have a principle or a brain that connects with the spine - but I'm not.

What would make things interesting is if Corbyn wins but a more centrally aligned candidate wins the deputy leader contest.

I don't really understand why Labour needed a separate contest for deputy leader when they could have run one contest with the winner becoming leader and the runner up being deputy - if the runner up doesn't want to be deputy then it goes to the third place person.

 

[Robertj21a]

I'm not surprised. If I was a member of the Labour Party, on balance and all things considered, I would probably vote for him too - in fact anyone except the useless three who are competing with him, not one seems to have a principle or a brain that connects with the spine - but I'm not. If he does win, which seems to have come to a shock to the current Labour Party establishment, it's not beyond the realms of possibility that he could win a General Election. He is affable, personable, has beliefs and conviction (whether you agree or not), comes across as genuine and seems to be very much a breath of fresh air compared to the current crop of career politicians. I could never vote for him because he would want to scrap Trident amongst a few other 'red lines' that I have, and whilst capitalism is in a period of disrepute, I wouldn't want to see it replaced with socialism. But I'm really looking forward to the return of the North West Water Board, Norweb and British Gas. Do we think the trains will be in BR blue or Large Logo, and will we see the return of Maxpax coffee and the Lyons individual fruit pie?

He will not be able to secure enough votes to win any future General Election, but at least it gives Labour a traditional figurehead in opposition.

 

[northwichcat]

He will not be able to secure enough votes to win any future General Election, but at least it gives Labour a traditional figurehead in opposition.

Some commentators have suggested if Corbyn wins he'll probably stand down after 4 years and let someone else lead Labour in to the next election.

 

[Butts]

Some commentators have suggested if Corbyn wins he'll probably stand down after 4 years and let someone else lead Labour in to the next election.

Which begs the question what is the point in him standing if we are going to have to go through this all over again prior to an election.

 

[Aldaniti]

He will not be able to secure enough votes to win any future General Election, but at least it gives Labour a traditional figurehead in opposition.

You could be right, but I wouldn't be so sure. After all, only a handful of Labour MP's wanted him on the ballot paper to encourage a debate. That went well didn't it. What is more for sure is that a huge chunk of the electorate are increasingly disillusioned with inept career politicians, both Labour and Tory. Do you vote for someone with a red or blue rosette who is merely going to kick the can down the road, or do you vote for someone with conviction who will probably achieve some change for the good, despite having reservations about some really fundamental matters. I must confess, as someone who has never voted Labour in his life, it has certainly given me pause for thought.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What would make things interesting is if Corbyn wins but a more centrally aligned candidate wins the deputy leader contest.

I don't really understand why Labour needed a separate contest for deputy leader when they could have run one contest with the winner becoming leader and the runner up being deputy - if the runner up doesn't want to be deputy then it goes to the third place person.

Indeed, whatever the outcomes, I guess the Labour Party is in for an interesting and possibly turbulent few years.

 

[Tetchytyke]

With your reference to VED and Fuel Tax are you saying a poor person can be expected to have a Car ?

Just what is your definition of a "poor person" ?

I'm not defining a "poor person" as someone who is destitute, simply someone who has enough to survive but nothing more. I know some think only the destitute are in poverty, but I think poverty, like any measure, is relative.

Of course a poor person can be expected to have a car. In fact, they're more likely to be forced to have a car, regardless of cost, as they're more likely to be working antisocial hours when public transport doesn't operate.

The changes to VED don't affect current cars, at least, but VED is charged according to pollution and not according to the retail value of the car. Given that hybrid cars, or cars with "green technology" like turbos, tend to be significantly more expensive than standard cars, I'd say this is regressive. It's the same with fuel tax; the poorest people will be driving the oldest cars, and by their very nature are likely to be a lot less economical.

As for Corbyn, I think it'll be interesting. In the current electoral system I don't see him winning a general election- elections are decided in a handful of shire constituencies, who aren't going to vote for a leftie- but I think he'll make a better job of things than Brown or Miliband ever managed to. And I think he'll make a better job than any of the other candidates: Burnham's tainted by his time as health secretary, Cooper by her husband (much as she shouldn't be, she is) and Kendall is just another vacuous Blairite who'd serve up yet more Diet Tory policies.

At least someone like Corbyn might have a chance at getting the Scots back into Labour and, free of the threat of the SNP, I'd expect to see some of those who voted Tory, Green or UKIP go back to Labour. He'd even tempt me to vote Labour, and I've never voted for them in my life.

 

[TheKnightWho]

He will not be able to secure enough votes to win any future General Election, but at least it gives Labour a traditional figurehead in opposition.

Why is that?

 

[northwichcat]

Which begs the question what is the point in him standing if we are going to have to go through this all over again prior to an election.

I don't think he expected to have a chance of winning, the people who nominated him did so to widen the debate. He would be 71 by the next election

 

[Butts]

I don't think he expected to have a chance of winning, the people who nominated him did so to widen the debate. He would be 71 by the next election

To me he seems a genuine person who has the interests of the poorer members of society within his scope. Surely this is what socialism is all about.

However The mainstream Labour Party today finds this an anathema as it has moved away from it's roots and is just a "Tory Lite" in all but name.

This is not necessarily the fault of the party which realises the electorate for all their supposed empathy with the poor fail to translate this into votes at the ballot box. In other words most people are happy for improvements in the lifestyle of the needy as long as someone else pays for it

 

[Clip]

My argument is that a link cannot be made. Not all conservative voters are "toffs" because the appeal of the conservatives extends to the ordinary middle class person, presumably who you refer to when talk of the average person.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And my point was, as was Butts, is that muddythefish was calling all Tories toffs, when quite clearly they are not.....

:roll:

And we could follow on from muddys post about 'what do they know' and aplly the same to the Labour party also who seem to have people and previous leaders whose so lives and careers were given to politics in some form - what do they know about the man on the street too? Just being a Labour party MP or member doesnt automatically give you the inside knowledge of people - as that Rochester MP proved.

 

[valenta]

For me Corbyn is the only viable chance that Labour have of getting into government at the next general election. The English are too right wing and the Scots too firmly in the SNP camp for them to gain an outright majority but a coaliton with the SNP would be a distinct possibility, Corbyn (unlike Miliband) has said he would be open to this.
The other three candidates for the leadership are either practically Tory (Liz Kendall) or else they seem to have no clear economic plan for the country, the major failing of the Labour campaign in the last election. Corbyn on the other hand is clear in his left wing agenda.
In order to provide genuine opposition and offer a genuine alternative for people to vote for in the next general election, Corbyn must be elected. It's surprising how many Labour MP's have either lambasted Corbyn or threatened to resign from the party should he become leader, they have joined what is essentially a socialist party and should expect a socialist leader. Good riddance to them I say - It's about time we had a party in England who genuinely stick up for the working people.

Hearing an interview with Corbyn, one particular idea really struck a chord with me - he talked of how we are all an accident away from needing the support of a welfare system, thus we need a welfare system which will support and protect people - what the Tory party are currently doing away with.

Those who suggest that Corbyn would kill the Labour Party (namely Tony Blair) here is an interesting article: http://i100.independent.co.uk/artic...-with-corbyn-more-than-youd-think--Z1rzOuZmEl
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And my point was, as was Butts, is that muddythefish was calling all Tories toffs, when quite clearly they are not.....

:roll:

And we could follow on from muddys post about 'what do they know' and aplly the same to the Labour party also who seem to have people and previous leaders whose so lives and careers were given to politics in some form - what do they know about the man on the street too? Just being a Labour party MP or member doesnt automatically give you the inside knowledge of people - as that Rochester MP proved.

Yes, there's no reason to assume that a Labour Party MP would have more knowledge of people than a Tory party MP, but a Labour MP is generally not fooled by the mistaken ideology that working hard immediately means you have enough money to mean there is no need for an adequate welfare system. Increasing welfare helps support everyone (not just the poorest) and the fact that Labour MP's can see this suggests to me that they are able to understand the struggle of the poorest in society - and do not immediately brand them as lazy.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

He will not be able to secure enough votes to win any future General Election, but at least it gives Labour a traditional figurehead in opposition.

People also said that he wouldn't stand a chance of being elected leader, now just three weeks later he is odds on favourite . Who knows what the country will look like in 2020 both politically and economically, we could have withdrawn from Europe, the Scott's could have called a second referendum, George Osbourne may have fixed the economy or it could have crashed and burned or any other number of possibilities that could influence politics.

One year ago no one would have predicted that the SNP would lose the referendum but go in to win another 50 MP's at the general election. We simply don't know what the next five years will hold so it is far to early to make any predictions about the 2020 GE and what could happen, as they say 24 hours is a long time in Politics, 5 years is an eternity.

 

[northwichcat]

Yes, there's no reason to assume that a Labour Party MP would have more knowledge of people than a Tory party MP, but a Labour MP is generally not fooled by the mistaken ideology that working hard immediately means you have enough money to mean there is no need for an adequate welfare system.

In my opinion Labour got the Working Tax Credits system wrong. It seemed pointless that so many people on low incomes paid income tax and then effectively claimed a refund the following year through Working Tax Credits. The Lib Dems had the right idea in raising the personal allowance. However, the Conservatives thought that alone could mean an end to Working Tax Credits which brought back the original problem on a lesser scale.

Now the Conservatives have come up with a living wage as a solution to the problem they created - a living wage. However, that doesn't seem to be particularly well thought out because:

1. Some employers have said they will have to reduce the number of hours their employees work as a result.
2. It could well result in people in skilled jobs earning not that much more than people doing unskilled jobs, as the people doing unskilled jobs get large pay rises and employers can't afford pay rises for people doing skilled jobs.
3. It only applies to over 25s.

So once that's implemented we'll need solutions to the new problems.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I'd take the employers' wibble with a shedload of salt. They said the same thing when the national minimum wage was introduced, claiming that it'll be the end of their business and everyone will be going to hell in a handcart. If a business can't afford to pay NMW then it deserves to go bust.

I'd agree that changing the tax system to lift the lowest earners out of it is a good step forward, and better than the convoluted tax credit system. But tax credits were about more than that; they helped people with childcare costs, they topped up incomes for people with children, and that is all going. My daughter's mother is going to lose £150/month. It'd take a bit more than income tax threshold tweaking to give her that income back.

Tax credits were one solution to employers paying poverty pay and scrounging off the state to pay the rest to their staff. Abolishing tax credits isn't going to make the scrounging freeloader employers pay a proper wage, though. That's going to take a politician with courage to make employers pay their way. I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[Senex]

It's about time we had a party in England who genuinely stick up for the working people.

Indeed, but who are "the working people" today and what is "the working class"? Is a Eurostar driver, or a London Tube driver, both of whom get paid substantially more than many younger doctors and lawyers, still working class. And what class is, say, the senior consultant surgeon with a huge income but no capital to fall back on.

However we care to define it, it seems to me that the Tories don't represent those who work for their money, in part on all the grounds that have been spelled out here, and Labour don't really know what they represent, with one lot saying they're quite happy with the filthy rich, another lot seeming to have no interest at all in anyone who's not some sort of claimant living in a council house (and just maybe employed, as long as it's in the public sector), and, as ever, the large left-leaning contingent of the intelligentsia.

Did Blair, for all his faults, have a genuine interest in creating a party that might represent all those in the unrepresented middle?

 

[muddythefish]

For me Corbyn is the only viable chance that Labour have of getting into government at the next general election. .

I think Andy Burnham is correct when he says a Corbyn victory would most likely see the Labour party split with the Blairite right wing forming a new centre left party similar to the SDP in the 1980s. I cannot see any of the Blairites being happy to serve under Corbyn. The problem is that Labour would then end up as a rump party of the harder left and the overall left of centre vote would be divided 3 ways between Labour, the new SDP and the Lib Dems.

 

[valenta]

Indeed, but who are "the working people" today and what is "the working class"? Is a Eurostar driver, or a London Tube driver, both of whom get paid substantially more than many younger doctors and lawyers, still working class. And what class is, say, the senior consultant surgeon with a huge income but no capital to fall back on.

My definition of workers is everyone who is in work. There's a misconception that a socialist party would only stick up only for the poorer people in society, in old terms "the working class". What socialism aims for is an effective welfare system can benefit everyone in society.

 

[Butts]

Indeed, but who are "the working people" today and what is "the working class"? Is a Eurostar driver, or a London Tube driver, both of whom get paid substantially more than many younger doctors and lawyers, still working class. And what class is, say, the senior consultant surgeon with a huge income but no capital to fall back on.

However we care to define it, it seems to me that the Tories don't represent those who work for their money, in part on all the grounds that have been spelled out here, and Labour don't really know what they represent, with one lot saying they're quite happy with the filthy rich, another lot seeming to have no interest at all in anyone who's not some sort of claimant living in a council house (and just maybe employed, as long as it's in the public sector), and, as ever, the large left-leaning contingent of the intelligentsia.

Did Blair, for all his faults, have a genuine interest in creating a party that might represent all those in the unrepresented middle?

If this is true then 99% of the people who voted for them have been like turkeys voting for Christmas - a veritable "sting" indeed
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think Andy Burnham is correct when he says a Corbyn victory would most likely see the Labour party split with the Blairite right wing forming a new centre left party similar to the SDP in the 1980s. I cannot see any of the Blairites being happy to serve under Corbyn. The problem is that Labour would then end up as a rump party of the harder left and the overall left of centre vote would be divided 3 ways between Labour, the new SDP and the Lib Dems.

Leaving the door open for perpetual Conservative Governments until another "Blair" arrives ?

 

[Tetchytyke]

Labour's trouble is they were seen as too left wing in the shire marginals, too right-wing in Scotland but about right in the north of England where their vote share went up. It's tough to convince people of all the positions; Blair saw to that.

 

[Butts]

Labour's trouble is they were seen as too left wing in the shire marginals, too right-wing in Scotland but about right in the north of England where their vote share went up. It's tough to convince people of all the positions; Blair saw to that.

You forgot to mention London, they did quite well there as well. In fact they actually had a net gain of seats from The Conservatives over the UK as a whole.

I want to know why "Were you up for Portillo" has not been replaced by "Were you up for Balls"

 

[Robertj21a]

Why is that?

I realise that you are only taunting......

........because my personal view is that there are, nowadays, too many in the 'middle ground' who will not be swayed any further left.

And yes, I realise that you will disagree.

 

[TheKnightWho]

I realise that you are only taunting......

........because my personal view is that there are, nowadays, too many in the 'middle ground' who will not be swayed any further left.

And yes, I realise that you will disagree.

I am asking your opinion. How on earth is that taunting?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Yes, precisely the aim of the Tory party!

I see we are now discussing historical and defunct political parties, so I will enter into the sprit of the debate by asking what would be the aims of the Whig party...:roll:
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Labour's trouble is they were seen as too left wing in the shire marginals, too right-wing in Scotland but about right in the north of England where their vote share went up. It's tough to convince people of all the positions; Blair saw to that.

I have emboldened the part of your posting about "the north of England" and can assure you if you look at certain enclaves on the political map of that region, "Blue" will forever be the dominant political colour. I speak as one who is resident in "The Cheshire Golden Triangle".

 

[Robertj21a]

I am asking your opinion. How on earth is that taunting?

From previous observations.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Quite right Paul, I should really have said urban north. The rural constituencies- with the notable exception of Westmorland- are Tory.

I still don't think most of the country are centrist, but given the FPTP electoral system its the centrist towns which get to decide. So the parties have to appeal to these people.

Corbyn will be popular with people who already vote Labour. If he can get Scotland back it'll be a success. But he isn't going to appeal to those in the shire marginal

 

[northwichcat]

I'd take the employers' wibble with a shedload of salt. They said the same thing when the national minimum wage was introduced, claiming that it'll be the end of their business and everyone will be going to hell in a handcart. If a business can't afford to pay NMW then it deserves to go bust.

The Minimum Wage was originally introduced when the economy was very strong.

I'm not saying businesses will go bust but they will try to make 'efficiency savings' as a result of the payroll increasing, which could include reducing the working week from 37.5 hours to 35 hours but still expecting the same amount of work to be done.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I have emboldened the part of your posting about "the north of England" and can assure you if you look at certain enclaves on the political map of that region, "Blue" will forever be the dominant political colour. I speak as one who is resident in "The Cheshire Golden Triangle".

I agree. However, there are some skewed boundaries which help keep it blue. For Knutsford Town Council really there should be 5 wards with 3 Councillors each. However, there are 4 wards with one ward having 6 Councillors. That double sized ward contains the area where there is the lowest proportion of Conservative supporters and it became a double size ward after the death of Knutsford's only ever Labour mayor (who would have strongly opposed the boundary changes.) If the ward was split fairly in to two we would have one ward where the Conservatives have no chance of being elected and one where they have a good chance of getting elected. As it is the Conservatives are able to get up to 4 seats in the double ward.

 

[TheKnightWho]

From previous observations.

And what is that supposed to mean?

 

[DarloRich]

Corbyn will be popular with people who already vote Labour. If he can get Scotland back it'll be a success. But he isn't going to appeal to those in the shire marginal

And therein is the issue - Corbyn plays well with the "choir" but wont attract the congregation and will be mercilessly destroyed/ridiculed by the Sun/Mail/Telegraph/Express/Times axis.

The sad fact is that to win you must appeal to the narrow band of selfish "whats in it for me" undecideds who hold the key to success. Will they vote for Corbyn? I doubt it. The people who benefit most from Corbyn and his polices don't vote in enough numbers in marginals and the people who do vote wont benefit from his policies.

It is real heart v head issue. My view is that to help the majority Labour actually have to win power first! I am unsure ANY of the candidates will deliver that! In honesty, I have no idea who i will vote for

 

[cb a1]

The sad fact is that to win you must appeal to the narrow band of selfish "whats in it for me" undecideds who hold the key to success.

I'm not convinced that this argument will always hold true.

For example - Two party state.

When you have a large % of the population voting roughly 50:50, then the narrow middle band of selfish "what's in it for me" swing voters hold the key to success.

Over time this leads to both parties converging in terms of policies to appeal to that small set of voters. This leads to apathy in those who are further from the centre and a case of "what's the point in voting, they're both the same anyway".

I wonder if we're now reaching a position where a hard pull to the left by Labour would attract more of the apathetic than the loss of voters from the centre?

Which cohorts of society are most likely not to vote? I believe it is the young and the poor, both of whom I believe are traditionally more likely to vote left than right.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Over time this leads to both parties converging in terms of policies to appeal to that small set of voters. This leads to apathy in those who are further from the centre and a case of "what's the point in voting, they're both the same anyway".

I wonder if we're now reaching a position where a hard pull to the left by Labour would attract more of the apathetic than the loss of voters from the centre?

Labour don't need more votes, they need a better spread of votes. Their vote share actually went up in many parts of the country at the last election; the problem was, this was in areas (London, urban northern England), that already voted Labour.

If we had PR then you're right, the net gain of disaffected voters would help them. But we don't.

As the blogger Diamond Geezer points out, the Conservatives won the election on the decision of just over 900 people. http://diamondgeezer.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/majority-2015.html?m=1. If those 900 people had voted the other way, the Tories wouldn't be in overall power.

The question is whether Corbyn can appeal to those 900 people.