Jeremy Corbyn's Labour

[EastStandBlue]

Labour are still fighting the 2010 election.

Completely agree with this. I've definitely been in the camp that there shouldn't be a rush to elect a leader for the party, simply because there needs to be a deep-rooted review of what the party stands for in modern politics and what needs to be done to modernise. IMO, only once that's done should people be willing to put themselves forward to lead it.

This total denial of responsibility for the economy is so damaging to the Labour Party that it will be very difficult for them to regain power until they get over it. whenever challenged on spending Labour put up this straw man about spending causing the crash. Miliband did it in the final TV debate. No one is saying that overspending caused the crash. What is being said is that Labour overspending left the economy in a perilous state when the economy did crash.

There was an interesting piece in the Guardian last week detailing Labour's campaign, and by all accounts Miliband completely fluffed his lines on the economy during the final debate. He was prepped for a question similar to the one he answered and was supposed to have replied with an acceptance that Labour misspent when last in government, but also with a firm ripost that the Conservatives had to be held to account for the under-regulation of the banks. He didn't, it sent alarm bells ringing throughout the entire campaign team and I'd say it was that moment which ultimately swung the undecided voters to the Tories. I don't necessarily think that mistake swayed the election, but it certainly ruined any chance Miliband had of getting into Number 10.

the only person who seems to get this in the labour leadership race is Liz Kendall.

From this **** poor crop of candidates she is, in my opinion, the only one capable of doing the modernising that's required. I'll be voting for Kendall, but I think it'll be Burnham that wins.

 

[Sandbach Shrimper]

Choosing the next Labour leader is like appointing an England manager. It doesn't matter who they pick because they're not going to win anything anyway.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

What were the reasons then? Thrill me with your analogy.

(As I've explained before), the English electorate were gifted a reason to vote Tory, to keep out a potential Labour/SNP coalition.The Tories also won the all-important economic management argument, (despite not meeting their own 2010 deficit reduction target).

Completely agree with this. I've definitely been in the camp that there shouldn't be a rush to elect a leader for the party, simply because there needs to be a deep-rooted review of what the party stands for in modern politics and what needs to be done to modernise. IMO, only once that's done should people be willing to put themselves forward to lead it.

Prescott was right to say on the Daily Politics today that EM should not have stood down until after the Labour leadership contest had taken place.As Jim Callaghan did in 1979.

From this **** poor crop of candidates she is, in my opinion, the only one capable of doing the modernising that's required. I'll be voting for Kendall, but I think it'll be Burnham that wins.

We agree on that.It was obvious that Prescott on today's Daily Politics didn't have a high opinion of LK (and even refused to mention her by name).

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

[video]http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-33098554[/video]

David Miliband gets some good advice.

 

[Uncle Leo]

Enjoyed this in The Times on DM today...

David Miliband feels vindicated. That’s the theme of his interviews with The Times and CNN this week, for all his expressions of sympathy for Ed. He’s emphatic that Labour had the wrong policies — they were too radical, too risky, too focused on those at the bottom of the pile. The party hadn’t understood the needs of business or of the middle class. It should have offered the same combination of economic dynamism and social justice that defined new Labour. With every sentence, David is reinforcing his underlying message: Labour should have chosen me.

He is right to criticise the narrowness of the party’s campaign. It often sounded more like a series of indignant complaints than a strategy for effective government. Labour was far more interested in how the country’s wealth should be shared than in how to generate it. It never accepted, as it should have done, that it had spent more than tax receipts justified in its final few years in power. In addition, Ed never convinced the electorate that he was competent. But leaping from that to the conclusion that Labour would have done better with David in charge? That’s a fantasy.

If David Miliband had been leader, Labour would have lost for different reasons but they would still have lost. By 2010 it was apparent that the former foreign secretary didn’t have the warmth, charisma or inspiring ideas needed to win the country over. His speeches and articles were mostly platitudinous or obscure. Whether he was touring India talking to diplomats, addressing schoolchildren or meeting party supporters, his audiences frequently complained that he came across as brusque, patronising and arrogant.

The sentimental notion that, based in New York as president of an aid charity, he is some kind of prince over the water doesn’t stand up. It needs to be dealt with because David isn’t just making an academic intervention. He’s opening the door to a possible return to politics.

One of his allies tells me that for the past five years David has been effectively silenced. He couldn’t comment on domestic politics without feeding a psychodrama about his fraternal feud. Now he feels liberated. If the personal and political circumstances were right, he’d like the option of returning but only, it appears, if he could see the perfect conditions for success. He wouldn’t do it if Labour had a strong leader — “what would be the point?” his ally asks. Nor would he bother if the party looked like a lost cause. In other words, if this crop of candidates doesn’t deliver and the Tories are floundering in a few years’ time, David Miliband would like to swoop in as the party’s saviour.

It’s precisely this attitude, of wanting to be presented with a prize rather than fighting for it, which cost him the leadership in 2010. It slipped through his fingers for the same reasons that would have lost him the election: he was simultaneously overconfident and overcautious; complacent, cold and dismissive.

By 2010 Miliband had already hastily abandoned three leadership bids, making different mistakes each time. In the summer of 2008 he published a bland article which his excited aides briefed as an attack on Gordon Brown. Miliband expected MPs to flock to his side. He hadn’t prepared the ground. No one responded and an embarrassed Miliband had to pretend the piece had no hidden point. At the party conference a few months later another widely briefed challenge to Brown collapsed when Miliband gave a pompous platform speech, was photographed looking ludicrous clutching a banana, and was overheard excusing his performance as an attempt to avoid a “Heseltine moment”. The following year he funked his best chance of seizing the Labour crown when James Purnell, then the work and pensions secretary, quit the cabinet to trigger a revolt against Brown. Instead of acting swiftly, Miliband dithered before deciding that he’d rather run the party after it had been rejected at the polls.

David was confident he would win the 2010 leadership race. He was impatient and clearly bored at several of the hustings. His eventual defeat came as a tremendous shock to him, but not to some of his supporters. If David had got the votes of just six more MPs he would have won. Key Labour figures who could have secured those votes for him had been rejected when they offered to help. Just as his brother was to do later, David’s self-belief and over-reliance on an inner circle had cost him success.

There is no indication that David Miliband has understood his own political failings. Perhaps he can become a more inclusive, inspiring politician. But until he demonstrates that, neither he nor his party should indulge in the Miliband myth.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

So given that why did Miliband fight the 2015 election promising higher spending and why did you support him?

I made it clear in my previous post that (like the late Ralph Miliband) I'm not a great fan of Parliamentary Socialism.

However,I was happy to support EM on the basis that he was the most progressive English party leader fighting the election.

He certaintly didn't lose the 2015 election by "promising higher spending",however.

He lost it by completely discounting the achievements of the Blair years (minimum wage etc) and not coming up with a compelling enough economic narrative to challenge the Tories handling of the economy.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-33127323

JC makes it onto the ballot (just) !:thumbsup:

 

[Sandbach Shrimper]

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-33127323

JC makes it onto the ballot (just) !:thumbsup:

Every Tory in the country is delighted.

 

[EastStandBlue]

Every Tory in the country is delighted.

Why? He's not going to get elected. All he'll serve to do is dilute the left vote a bit, giving Cooper a massive boost.

Kendall obviously troubling Cooper and Burnham though for them to come out with the trash they did over the weekend.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Why? He's not going to get elected. All he'll serve to do is dilute the left vote a bit, giving Cooper a massive boost.

Kendall obviously troubling Cooper and Burnham though for them to come out with the trash they did over the weekend.

Actually,what he'll do is give the anti-austerity argument a voice in the Labour leadership contest.

 

[RHB]

Why? He's not going to get elected. All he'll serve to do is dilute the left vote a bit, giving Cooper a massive boost.

Kendall obviously troubling Cooper and Burnham though for them to come out with the trash they did over the weekend.

Actually,what he'll do is give the anti-austerity argument a voice in the Labour leadership contest.

Actually, he will do both. I genuinely believe that Labour are being far too previous with this contest. I doubt they have fully assessed the hows and whys of the latest defeat and if they get this leadership contest wrong they could be out of power for some time.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Actually, he will do both. I genuinely believe that Labour are being far too previous with this contest. I doubt they have fully assessed the hows and whys of the latest defeat and if they get this leadership contest wrong they could be out of power for some time.

It's appropriate that there should now be as wide a debate as possible - taking in JC on the left and LK on the right plus two centre-left candidates.

You're probably right about Labour being out of power for some time though-2025 would be 15 years.

 

[RHB]

It's appropriate that there should now be as wide a debate as possible - taking in JC on the left and LK on the right plus two centre-left candidates.

You're probably right about Labour being out of power for some time though-2025 would be 15 years.

We are also both probably old enough to have seen Labour out of power for a long time previously. What eventually happens is that successive Tory Governments become so blasé/corrupt/detached from social reality (delete as appropriate) that the general public will elect any Labour team who offer a realistic escape tunnel (a la Tony Blair). What goes round......

 

[maninasuitcase]

We are also both probably old enough to have seen Labour out of power for a long time previously. What eventually happens is that successive Tory Governments become so blasé/corrupt/detached from social reality (delete as appropriate) that the general public will elect any Labour team who offer a realistic escape tunnel (a la Tony Blair). What goes round......

I think that happens with both Tory and Labour governments. Since Thatcher came to power we have had two long periods of both parties in charge. I suspect the second term is electorate not wanting to change the status quo and the third time is their last chance before we get fed up with them. I would guess the Tories will win in 2020, Labour in 2025, 2030 and 2035.

 

[RHB]

I think that happens with both Tory and Labour governments. Since Thatcher came to power we have had two long periods of both parties in charge. I suspect the second term is electorate not wanting to change the status quo and the third time is their last chance before we get fed up with them. I would guess the Tories will win in 2020, Labour in 2025, 2030 and 2035.

That may well be true, but as I lean a little bit to the left I couldn't possibly comment.

 

[Rob Noxious]

Liz Kendall in the news > http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/polit...ll-to-punch-uks-last-coal-miner-2015052298524

 

[Benfleet A1]

It appears that some are starting to sweat a tad. :smile: Delicious.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33490959

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

It appears that some are starting to sweat a tad. :smile: Delicious.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33490959

Even that Tory bint on QT on Thursday was tipping RC as runner up in the election.He'll certainly do a lot better than Dianne Abbott did.

4th place for Liz Kendall methinks.:smiles:

 

[Napster]

#Corbynforleader

:hilarious::hilarious:

 

[Sandbach Shrimper]

Anyone see Jeremy Corbyn lose his rag with Krishnan Guru-Murphy on C4 News last night when questioned about referring to Hamas and Hezbollah as "friends"?