Labour Party leadership election 2015

[ChrisDR68]

Watching the Sunday Politics right now.

Interesting that Corbyn said a Labour government should borrow in the future for investment and infrastructure. In an ideal world current spending should run in a balanced way.

Not sure that's a traditional Bennite position.

He's pitching himself quite cleverly right now I think.

[ChrisDR68]

Interesting piece by Nick Cohen.

Here's an excerpt:   

In truth, a Corbyn victory wouldn’t lead to a coup but a shambles. The far-left Labour campaign group has only 10 MPs which is not enough to fill a shadow cabinet. More to the point Corbyn did not expect to win. He ran only to “give Labour party members a voice in this debate”. A Corbyn victory would be more than a disaster Labour didn’t see coming. It would be a disaster Corbyn didn’t see coming, and wouldn’t know what to do with.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/commentisfree/2015/jul/18/jeremy-corbyn-labour-leadership-election

[ChrisDR68]

Interesting article about the electorate in this election:

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/just-who-are-these-labour-party-members-who-will-be-choosing-the-new-leader-10409109.html

This is the most interesting bit:

8 Labour Party members are really pretty left wing

When we asked grassroots members to place themselves on a left-right spectrum running from zero (“very left wing”) to ten (“very right wing”), the average score was 2.39 – interestingly, slightly to the left of the average SNP member and only just to the right of the average member of the Greens; Lib Dem members placed themselves considerably closer towards the centre. On specific issues, just over 90% of Labour members think cuts to public spending have gone too far. About the same proportion want to see government redistributing income from the better-off to the less well-off. Just over 80% think that management will always try to get the better of employees if it gets the chance. So, although only two out of our 1200 Labour Party members wrote down Jeremy Corbyn’s name when we asked them to tell us who should replace Ed Miliband, no-one should be too surprised if he attracts more support than some in the Party hoped would be the case.

[ChrisDR68]

Caroline Flint would be a good deputy leader in my opinion although it looks like Tom Watson's contest to lose right now.

Yvette Cooper as leader and Caroline Flint as deputy... you'd get old Labour fogies choking on their cornflakes if that happened!

[ChrisDR68]

Oh,so now the issue with Ed Miliband is that he wasn't left wing enough?

Aren't you the arch Blairite? I'm sure you can't possibly entertain the thought. Miliband didn't inspire the left anti-austerity vote, nor attract the Very Serious liberals who might be tempted not to vote Tory if given enough of a right-wing platform. In many ways hamstrung by trying to keep party unity and quite reasonably believing an unpopular Tory government, alongside splits in their right flank, could allow him to return on an offer of restraint was his undoing.

Still, this leadership campaign has shown him in a good light if anything.

Nothing to do with Ed being too left wing or not left wing enough. Voters in England simply didn't see him as of prime ministerial quality. 

That's why his ratings were always so terrible despite adopting a lot of policies that were seemingly popular with the public.

Up in Scotland the aftermath of the independence referendum bulldozed everything else out of the way and was also nothing to do with how left wing Ed was (or wasn't).

[ChrisDR68]

On the subject of market research, here's some more:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/271940748/Listening-to-Labour-s-Lost-Labour-Voters-bbm-Research-July-2015

Quite amusing at times the way it is written. Here's a snippet:


On top of all this, there was a perception that Labour had a very weak Leader. These voters didn’t see Ed Miliband as a Prime Minister. In fact, many people in the groups laughed at the prospect of him being the leader of the UK. It’s probably unhelpful to repeat all of the comments about Ed Miliband – very few were complimentary. Suffice to say that the brand of Labour has been damaged massively by these voters’ inability to perceive him as a capable and competent Prime Minister. 

Their image of Labour as a political party with a leader that was open to derision clouded all their thinking about a renewed Labour Party, and what Labour needs from its next Leader.  These voters really struggled to imagine a Labour Party with a strong, confident leader in the future.


That confirms what I've thought for a long time.

If you're in opposition you absolutely have to have a credible leader that looks and sounds like a prime minister in waiting. In this context policies are secondary (and a long way secondary at that as most voters broadly know where the Conservative and Labour Parties are coming from).

Labour didn't with Neil Kinnock and they didn't with Ed Miliband hence the unexpected defeats of 1992 and 2015.

[ChrisDR68]

*Unilateral nuclear disarmament, a raft of nationalisations, removal of any private involvement in education and the NHS, higher taxes on business and the wealthy, rent caps, the return of council housing in force etc

The party tried to convince the public on those policies not just in 1983 but in 1987 as well. Both times it resulted in a three figure Conservative majority despite the mass unemployment of the time.

There is a majority middle class in the UK and they're likely to be afraid of being soaked in tax to pay for a lot of that wish list. The British are also a broadly patriotic bunch so the CND approach to the defence issue is also likely to be unpopular with voters despite the end of the cold war.

Relying on your possible and potential enemies being nice to you will probably be seen to be a bit of a hostage to fortune by the electorate.

[ChrisDR68]

Nationalisations and housing construction will actually save money (it's why they recieve overwhelming public support). Rent caps cost nothing. If you think the majority pay corporation tax or high-rate income tax then I'm wasting my time here.

Any nuclear bombing of the UK (the only time you'd actually need them) would automatically involve mainland Europe (which is why Canada and Germany are not seen as some sitting ducks).

Of course not but perception is king in politics.

The Conservatives banged on about Labour causing the financial mess the country was in at the end of their period of office and the public largely agreed with that assessment.

Personally I think about 70% of the financial crisis lies squarely on the shoulders of banks themselves but Brown also failed in his regulation of them which made matters much worse.

If Labour is led by Corbyn in the 2020 general election you can bet your bottom dollar they will bang on about a hike in tax for most people to pay of their proposed policies however much Labour denied that would be the case.

Quite similar to what happened during the 1992 general election in fact.

[ChrisDR68]

Your own analysis has Labour at some blame for the banking crisis, demonstrating how easy it was to blame Labour for it. It's completely different convincing people that they're paying taxes that they're not paying. "Are you a corporation?", "do you earn over 150K a year?". Two simple questions showing exactly who will be paying both. When majorities polled support higher taxes on the wealthy that's exactly who they have in mind.

It'd be quite ironic for the Tories to use the same tactic as 1992, given they've a) raised taxes on ordinary people (VAT), b) lied about not doing so, c) claimed it was imperative they done so, d) lowered taxes for the rich (top-rate, inheritance, corporation).

Does that mean you don't regard Gordon Brown to be at least partly responsible for what happened during the financial crisis?

On the general issue of personal taxation the bar is set lower for the Conservatives as their general philosophy is to try and keep taxes as low as possible. They may fail to do so in practice a lot of the time but their instincts are for a low tax small state economy.

The Labour Party's instincts are largely in the opposite direction.

You may say that's unfair but it's the way it is in British politics which is why Labour are usually on the defensive on this issue.

[ChrisDR68]

Question for you all: do you still think nationalising "the commanding heights of industry" was a good idea in retrospect?

There's a case for the railways and utilities being in the public sector but by the late 1970's there was a lot more of the British economy that was nationalised. A lot of it was very badly run (British Leyland, British Steel, British Telecom, Sealink) and lost a lot taxpayers money year after year.

It's worth noting that when most of these things were privatised in the 1980's they weren't terribly missed by the public and the quality of service the newly privatised companies provided was superior.

A couple (British Gas and British Petroleum) were profitable so would probably have been better staying in the public sector.

[ChrisDR68]

Any truth to this?

Meanwhile, among Labour MPs, it is becoming clear that there would be neither the political mechanism nor momentum for an early move against him in the event of his victory. His camp are also reportedly planning construction of a Corbynite “Atlantic Wall” to repel any such assaults on his leadership. By exerting control on Labour’s ruling executive, they plan to push through changes to membership rules, policy development, and – crucially – selections. This will include the reselection of sitting MPs.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11781068/The-only-way-to-stop-the-Corbyn-juggernaut-is-for-Liz-Kendall-to-pull-out.html

Echoes of the early 1980's if there is. 

[ChrisDR68]

Seems to support the narrative that Burnham is slipping into third place. I still I can't decide whether I'd prefer him to Yvette.

Can you imagine Andy Burnham or Yvette Cooper as prime minister?

Personally I can't with Burnham but I can just about see Yvette standing in front of the door of number 10 at the head of a minority Labour government.

[ChrisDR68]

Remember, Big Jim had a 50-31 lead over Thatcher as preferred PM on the day before the 1979 election.

Absolutely and it was a lead he thoroughly deserved imo.

Jim Callaghan, John Major and Gordon Brown all lost power for the same reason... there was a major event which undermined their credibility in the eyes of the public.

With Callaghan it was the Winter Of Discontent, with Major it was Black Wednesday and with Brown it was the Global Financial Crisis.

The resulting 1979, 1997 and 2010 general elections are also the last three times there has been a change of party in power.

Worryingly for Labour this seems to imply that there needs to be another major economic or industrial event before the current Conservative government are turfed out of office.

[ChrisDR68]

Tbh Blair's biggest mistake (well there's a lot of them) was not trying to push harder to nationalize it. Talking to my tory relatives they seem to think it's mad that Major sold it off-heck didn't Thatcher call it the poll tax on wheels?

The problem is that Burnham looks rather like he's trying to copy Corbyn. He's had to ditch his whole campaign plan of not looking too left wing since he expected to be fighting Cooper

The interesting thing is that since privatisation there has been a dramatic spike in passenger numbers according to this graph:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9f/GBR_rail_passengers_by_year.png 

Maybe people are in favour of nationisation in an abstract way without thinking carefully about what British Rail was actually like to use on a day-to-day basis before 1995.

[ChrisDR68]

He only seriously connected with Middle England (or any other part of the country) in 1997; the 2001 and 2005 elections were won with less votes than in both 1992 and 1979.

2001 was largely due to falling turnout (from 71% down to 59%). The 41% Labour achieved in that general election is still impressive when you view the party's share of the popular vote from February 1974 onwards:

1974 37.1% Feb
1974 39.2% Oct
1979 36.9%
1983 27.6%
1987 30.8%
1992 34.4%
1997 43.2%
2001 40.7%
2005 35.2%
2010 29.0%
2015 30.4%

In his 2 landslides Blair really was Mr. Heineken. Reaching parts of the electorate that the Labour Party has struggled (and generally failed) to reach over a very long period of time.

[ChrisDR68]

Corbyn, well some people think that the 40% who don't vote will all jump up for a 66 year old socialist-I don't know

There's a lot of nonsense being talked and written about getting non-voters energised enough to vote in my view.

In 1979 there was a 76% turnout which was considered a good number at the time. In 2015 the figure was 66%.

No-one will ever get all of the missing 34% to be motivated enough to put an X on a ballot paper if even in a good year 24% of those eligible to vote didn't bother.

At most we're talking about an extra 10% (as in 1979) but realistically it will be probably only be about 5% (which would get turnout back up to what it was in 1997).

Whether this extra 5-10% would help or hinder a Jeremy Corbyn led Labour Party in the 2020 general election is difficult to judge. My guess is these extra voters would probably split evenly for the two main parties as motivation to stop Corbyn becoming prime minister would increase to counteract the extra votes he may win from the previously disenfranchised (mainly young) electorate.

A similar thing happened in 1992 when turnout jumped from 75% to 78% as a lot of people who would not normally have voted did so in order to stop Neil Kinnock becoming prime minister.

[ChrisDR68]

Jack Straw endorses Cooper.

Good article in the New Stateman -

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/08/jack-straw-yvette-winner 

Here's a snippet:

I spent my first eighteen years as MP for Blackburn in opposition.

It wasn’t that I felt impotent. It was that I saw the damage which was being done to my area and its people, witnessed the lost opportunities and wasted life-chances – and felt so angry that self-indulgence within the Party had helped us to four successive election defeats. That was the greatest betrayal of all. That betrayal was led by those from the left who so frequently protested their purity of principle, who wilfully ignored the fact that in a democracy a party which seeks power has to persuade people to vote for it.

Repenting at leisure for choosing the wrong leader is something I’ve witnessed twice in the last 35 years.

Which two leaders do you think he's talking about?

[ChrisDR68]

New YouGov poll:

Corbyn - 53%
Burnham - 21%
Cooper - 18%
Kendall - 8%

Am I right in thinking there wouldn't be a second round if Corbyn got over 50% in the first round?

Silly question I know but just making sure

[ChrisDR68]

Well 2015 been's the first election year I've actually followed (General Elections are the only ones that count IMO) and it's going to be pretty crap if we have Labour getting crushed at the may election losing their Shadow Chancellor and Foreign Secretary, and then going on to elect someone who is going to be the worse leader since well ever. 

Tony Blair resigns and is replaced by:

Gordon Brown who is more to the left of Blair... who goes on to lose... who is then replaced by:

Ed Miliband who is more to the left of Brown... who goes on to lose... who is then replaced by:

Jeremy Corbyn who is more to the left of Miliband... who goes on to...

You can guess the rest I think

Obviously Brown was only very moderately more to the left of Blair but he was a more traditional tax and spend Labour right winger than "Third Way" Blair ever was.

[ChrisDR68]

"Even if you hate me, please don’t take Labour over the cliff edge"

That headline would seem to indicate that ol' Tone is well aware of the disdain a large proportion of people on the left in the UK hold him in.

Quite touching really...

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/12/even-if-hate-me-dont-take-labour-over-cliff-edge-tony-blair   

[ChrisDR68]

Cooper made a speech today in which she criticised Corbyn's views. Few specifics of course, just bland and vague statements like "he has old ideas for old times" and "we need to face the 21st century" etc, but then she isn't a politician who gives the impression of holding sincere opinions on anything. I imagine that she will gain some support but whether it will be enough is another matter.

John Rentoul has attempted to dissect Corbyn's views in his article in the Independent today. There would certainly be plenty of ammo for the Tories to throw at him at general election time.

Here's a snippet:

But the big problem with Corbyn’s policy is his approach to taxation, public spending and borrowing. He thinks that in 2020, when the government books will probably be in surplus, the government should tax, spend and borrow more on a vast scale.

As Yvette Cooper says in her speech today, Labour’s economic policy “has to be credible, and Jeremy’s isn’t”. She calls his plan to print money (“people’s quantitative easing”) “really bad economics”, saying “no good Keynesian would ever call for it”.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/daily-catchup-what-is-wrong-with-jeremy-corbyns-policies-anyway-10453123.html

Of course if public spending is in surplus by the next general election there may well be a groundswell of support for targeted investment spending to bolster the foundations of the UK economy.

[ChrisDR68]

In terms of formal mechanics... I don't have the new rules in front of me presently, but I believe a new leadership election would be triggered if a candidate secured the backing of a fifth of the PLP. The incumbent would be entitled to seek re-election were that to happen.

Whatever the rules are regarding such things the Labour Party simply doesn't do that sort of thing. Probably to do with forevermore being labelled a Judas or traitor from within the movement (and let's be honest... Labour supporters are obsessed with these terms even without trying to get rid of the incumbent leader in a leadership challenge).

If Jeremy Corbyn wins he'll stay until he himself resigns from the position. I'll eat my hat if that doesn't turn out to be the case

[ChrisDR68]

Foot was DOA because he was not someone people could take seriously as a potential PM.

Foot didn't take himself seriously as a potential PM which makes you wonder what he thought he was doing putting himself forward as a contender in the 1980 leadership contest in the first place.

The SDP experiment failed due to the following reasons:

1. It's appeal was too middle class which didn't touch Labour's inner city and urban core vote. If it was going to replace Labour as the main centre left party (which is what their aim was) they had to eat into Labour's heartlands or they were wasting their time. Amazingly they don't seem to have realised this at the time or since.

2. It relied on a couple of senior politicians at the top of the party to put it's message across. There was no great or deep grass roots movement.

3. While the Labour Party was seen as a potentially dangerous organisation to vote into government (especially on defence issues) most swing voters would end up backing the Conservatives as the traditional (if relatively unpopular at the time) safety first option at general election time. In those circumstances a vote for the SDP/Liberal Alliance was seen as a bit indulgent and feckless.

That is why I feel there won't be a split within the Labour Party this time around if Corbyn wins the leadership. The splitters will ultimately be wasting their time. Better to wait out the left's ascendancy and try and win back the leadership at a later date.  

[ChrisDR68]

How do you think he'll do at PMQ's and at the despatch box generally if he wins?

[ChrisDR68]

The New Statesman has endorsed Cooper (what a sensible lot ):

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/08/ns-leader-choice-labour

If Labour don't take this opportunity to elect it's first woman leader Lord alone knows when they ever will