Labour Party leadership election 2015

[Leftbehind]

Interesting about royal family because I'm against the institution but I'm not 100% certain I'd vote to get rid of them in a referendum.

The poll shows, that despite what Corbyn supporters say his political positions are out of the mainstream  

Those are simply those "Strongly" in favour. Polling usually has a Strongly / Moderately support compared to those who Moderately / Strongly opposed. It's a fact that nationalisation of rail & utilities polls majorities when asked.

I don't think evidence that Corbyn supporters are more fervent in their support for nationalisation than the average, disinterested member of the public is particularly enlightening. The public figures is likely much closer when you add in the moderate support. Besides, repeated polling has shown widespread opposition to privatisation and even that hasn't stopped the Thatcherites.

Also, lol at a large proportion of Kendall supporters who strongly hold positions that would put them in the Socialist Campaign Group if they were MPs.

Many of these policies receive majority support amongst Tories, it is a testament to the gulf between the PLP and the membership that these aren't our accepted policies.

[Leftbehind]

Many of these policies receive majority support amongst Tories, it is a testament to the gulf between the PLP and the membership that these aren't our accepted policies.

As I've said before a tory in kent supporting rail nationalization isn't going to simply vote Labour because of one policy. Our last manifesto has scared me off retail politics

Depends entirely on the Tory in question? If they're by no means a committed one, and they see eye-watering amounts leaving their pay packet each year just for privilege to commute to work and back, they may well just do. Getting tougher on benefits (so much so that a % die whilst being found fit for work), further privatisations that they likely don't support in the first place, more austerity for jam tomorrow and not much benefits for it, and immigration targets that they continually fail to meet don't tangibly improve their lot in the same way. No matter which way you cut it, it's an attractive policy to them that is on our turf - which beats ratcheting up our toughness on our own supporters (which curiously doesn't fail the 'Tories won't simply vote Labour' obstacle of yours?).

Many of these policies receive majority support amongst Tories, it is a testament to the gulf between the PLP and the membership that these aren't our accepted policies.

As I've said before a tory in kent supporting rail nationalization isn't going to simply vote Labour because of one policy. Our last manifesto has scared me off retail politics

In addition, people may like the policies but doubt the credibility of those promoting them.

Can't get much worse in credibility than temporary freezes that even the most disinterested members of the public quickly realise will just be made up for in the years following and other toothless, piecemeal reforms that leave the fundamentals untouched (see: rent freeze).

Only 42% of Corbyn supporters want tuition fees paid 100% by the government? That is quite low.

Bear in mind 'Corbyn supporters' have long since extended beyond the hard-left.

[Leftbehind]

While railway renationalisation may be a popular policy, it's probably not that high on most people's list of priorities. I'm a heritage rail enthusiast and I really, really don't care whether my local rail services are privately or publicly run, just that the service is decent.

It'll be high on the list for those having to pay through the nose for their yearly commuting to work, and that's who this policy will appeal to (beyond socialists) - those hit by spiralling ticket prices (alongside significant public subsidies) and the broader cost of living crisis - not rail enthusiasts. The other nationalisations mooted also speak to that, and would more resolutely benefit the breadth of the country.  

And in my case, one of my local services, c2c (whose franchise has just been extended to 2029) is a huge improvement on the service in BR days.

I'd posit your apathy contrasting with the enduring wish to nationalise despite it being off the agenda for decades now suggests that this experience isn't typical.

[Leftbehind]

1. Abortion was illegal
2. Life expectancy was about a decade shorter
3. Homosexuality was illegal

Yeah, if only we could return to the good old days, eh?

I would point out that 1 and 3 were both legalised under the Wilson government.

I would point out that people who weren't straight white males still had a much worse time of it (and that blanket nostalgia for sixty, seventy, eighty years ago is the reason why certain segments of the lefty-left [which I'm not saying you're a member of mind] remain entirely male and white and are so totally unsuccessful.)

I would point out that when people accuse Corbyn of returning to the sixties, they're not referring to his social policies or attitudes, they're referring to his economics and support for the welfare state, so when people say they would happily return to that, it's a bit of a non sequitur to then bring up gay and women's rights.

As for your latter statement, Jeremy's support easily disproves that.

[Leftbehind]

Hence when they summon up some faux outrage at how Corbynites are being "too indulgent" and overly-relaxed at the prospect of losing, we know what's really at play.

I was responding to the statement that the 60s was a better decade than the current one (which seems to have now been retracted, in fairness).

That the Wilson government fixed some of those things towards the end of the 60s is irrelevant to that claim.

Anyway, social policy aside, look at any decent metric of welfare and obviously people are better off now. Leftist radical nostalgia for poverty is annoying. I guess if you like poverty supporting Corbyn makes sense though.

There are some long term happiness studies showing that the 60s were the decade when most of Western Europe reached the level where higher material wealth stopped making us happier. Since then material progress has not made the average person feel better.

When you are poor increased material wealth makes you feel a lot better, but this effect decrease when you reach higher levels and at some point more stuff and better living conditions stop adding to most peoples feeling of satisfaction with life.

The nostalgia is also not completely unfounded: Society was a lot more safe and sustainable back then. Local communities functioned better, crime was lower, unemployment lower, outsourcing unheard of etc. Farming was closer to being organic, traffic congestion lower etc. At the same time it was a culturally much more vibrant and exciting era than today.

So as a decade it had an adequate level of material wealth for most people, was culturally interesting and a lot of social and economic changes since then have simply not benefitted ordinary people.

^ This, more or less exactly. Not to mention the fact that the people did actually have some kind of an influence and a choice at the moment, you know, democratically speaking. That's all over now, of course.

Honestly, I think Al's far closer to the actual cause - woolly notions of pollution and sentimentality overlooks that prospects for ordinary working-class Brits - particularly the young - things are far from "better off now". Decently paid, long-term secure jobs has made way for 'flexible', low-paid jobs thanks in large part to the shift to service sector economy (zero-hours up by 20% yipee!); union strength barely existent today; inflation in qualifications mean jobs in other sectors require qualifications that now come saddled with debt (up to 30K), pensions are, to put it lightly, not what they were and essentials like affordable housing & regulated rent are no longer a given. Last I seen, Britain's social mobility ranks amongst Eastern European levels - and it's notable, just look at the trend of working-class representation in parliament & other spheres, and I've even seen figures to suggest child poverty has risen since the 1960's.

Obviously ivory tower liberals have no idea, and so are to be found telling us, unconvincingly, we've never had it so good.

It would be more honest (in my opinion) if you had a moderate social democratic party and a separate Marxist socialist party. As explained above though the FPTP system means that the left are forced to accommodate each other within the same party which creates the endless tensions and even hatreds we're all familiar with.

The Anglosphere left has had the luxury of being able to travel right without risk of being severely punished by PR-enabled left splits. If you think the "social democratic moderates" would be rallying around Umunna & the cast of Blairites, whilst those unhappy shuffling off to Marxist rump, I think you've spectacularly underestimated the strength of dissatisfaction within Labour that the party has lost its way. Was it not Kinnock declaring he "had his party back" when Ed was elected?

Obviously I agree though, I said as much a few weeks back, I have little in common with the Blairite wing, and I doubt they do me.

[Leftbehind]

lol sorry, I just meant to impress that there are enough aspects where things have tangibly worsened that we needn't look to some of the things you listed.

[Leftbehind]

Even if Burnham wasn't having a shocking campaign, he clearly isn't seen as an acceptable compromise for the right of the party.

[Leftbehind]

Even if Burnham wasn't having a shocking campaign, he clearly isn't seen as an acceptable compromise for the right of the party.

That seems rather silly of them.

They've been acting very silly of late - not at all used to having to compromise. Amazed at the amount of Blairites holding up an innocuous tweet from a Sky News reporter, that 50,000 votes were cast by 12K during their debates as proof that Corbyn's popularity is all stage-managed, and not simply how a live opinion-meter works. Of course, the studio audience were obviously part of that rigging.

But more generally, many wanted a lurch rightwards following the defeat for Miliband, as it apparently shown the electoral failure of left-wing politics, and Burnham doesn't represent that for them.

[Leftbehind]

Eh Burnham has always been hard to tackle-I get the impression from some labour members that anyone not supporting a Corbyn agenda is well a right wing Blairite.

Sorry, but it was Yvette's camp going with both barrels at Burnham for attempting to bring onboard Corbyn's support.

The only clear right wing policy he has is on immigration, and that's still relatively moderate compared to people like Danczuk and Hoey.

There's going to be a lot of Blairite MP's who will thank the gods that JC doesn't win, but then realize they've got Burnham as leader

I rest my case, your honour.

Labour has gone back to its traditional position - a party of opposition.

Post-war Labour only failed to govern for most of the 50's and 80's, and even then they were robbed at the 1951 election.

[Leftbehind]

^Not to mention a likely acrimonious EU referendum.

Nearly half the 60s, an effective minority government in the 70s

More than the Tories could win in the 70's, and I didn't expect over half in the 60's to be classed as 'traditional opposition' territory.

out of office for over half of the 90s and pretty much all of this decade unless something very odd happens.

The noughties is certainly matching the 1980's nadir. New Labour seems to have left us discredited and demoralised (rightly or wrongly), hence the appetite for an Old Labour return.

[Leftbehind]

McDonnell is Shadow Chancellor.

[Leftbehind]

What large swing in turn of events in just 10 years.  Back in 2005 I recall one can with legitimate arguments, say "Can the CONs win again?".  Now, with Corbyn in charge and another redistricting coming up one can with legitimate arguments say "Can the LABs  win again?"  What a difference a couple of redistricting taking away the natural LAB advantage in terms of vote share to seat translation plus a change in LAB leadership make in 10 years.

A couple of things wrong with that, experts like Thrasher have already outlined that equitable constituencies were a minority of that advantage - unequal turnout (large turnout in safe Tory seats & poor turnout in safe Labour seats made for a larger Tory share of the vote, but equal seats) and tactical voting to keep Tories out were a far bigger advantage (that last one has unwound - as we witnessed the well-deserved collapse of the Lib Dems).

The far bigger threat, as Curtice has outlined, is that without the 40 odd Scottish seats the swings Labour need to make up for them begin to look impossible (upwards of 11% swing - Blair in 1997 couldn't achieve that) - so it's vital that Labour becomes more attractive to Scotland for its own survival. Corbyn looks the most attractive, in that regard, however he'll need to make sure not to lose existing voters, and in that:-

New poll makes grim (if predictable) reading for Corbyn fans:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-loses-fifth-of-labour-voters-with-critics-already-plotting-to-oust-him-10508584.html

28% think Corbyn is prime minister material... 72% do not.

If Labour does indeed lose 20% of it's voters that would put the party down at about 24 1/2% of the popular vote. Overall Labour looks less electable to 59% and more electable to 41% of the survey's respondents compared to May this year.

On the plus side the party could see it's popularity revive in Scotland with Corbyn as leader with 36% of SNP voters considering switching back to Labour.

The Prime Ministerial figure isn't particularly concerning - it plays to assumptions what PMs must look like; as we seen with the post-PMQ sample on BBC News, the woman who said she'd vote for him was the most vocal in how he didn't appear Prime Ministerial, and didn't particularly see that as a negative.

Now the 59/41 is more concerning, but ignores low forties has seen many a PM in power. I wouldn't be surprised if Thatcher had similar numbers at one time - and alienating Tories now the endless triangulation has been dropped was always an acceptable loss. It also, like those others, doesn't give us any hard numbers. "More likely" means nothing if those 36% SNP voters go and vote SNP but with warmer thoughts about Labour, similarly if those 20% of Labour voters "less likely" is just registering less enthusiasm, but still vote any way. It's curious none of these polls have included a VI.

There is certainly work to be done - to counter the right-wing media narrative and halting the own-goals, because it's been a bit of a circus this week and I wasn't expecting great numbers because of that.

[Leftbehind]

so it's vital that Labour becomes more attractive to Scotland for its own survival.

Not it's not. All you need to do is prevent Tories from winning an absolute majority and enter a coalition with SNP. There's no question SNP will choose to prop up a Labour government, as their voters would never forgive them for keeping a Torie government afloat.

Focusing on Scotland is the exact opposite of what Labour should do. You need to take seats away from the Tories in England, or they'll have a majority forever.

It's all well and good saying that, and a Labour government should certainly work with the SNP, but a Labour party that's given up on forming a majority again, and is beholden to SNP support, is very easily exploited by the Tory press and alienates the very same Labour-leaners identifying as more likely to vote Tory now because of Corbyn's election.

Also history tells us differently - the SNP helped bring Callaghan down after all. The fact is, as afleitch here demonstrates, SNP's constituents are varied and many care more about independence (especially their leadership). A Labour party not offering to sign off on another referendum will not be supported by the SNP, and if they do, then unionist Labour voters will punish them for it. 

[Leftbehind]

Of course, who knows, maybe this isn't an either/or situation.

Maybe. But the focus should be on taking seats away from the Tories. Certainly not on taking seats away from a party that would coalize with you anyway if push came to shove.

It's obviously also important to win seats in Con-Lab marginals - however, done with social democratic answers (higher minimum wage, rent caps to bring down welfare spending for instance). If done correctly - it could bring disenfranchised, the young, Green voters, and importantly those working class offered little by liberalism & voting for UKIP & BNP.

More triangulation with the Tories might win the minority of Lab > Con switchers back, but at further cost to the Greens and abstention.

[Leftbehind]

The fact is, as afleitch here demonstrates, SNP's constituents are varied and many care more about independence (especially their leadership). A Labour party not offering to sign off on another referendum will not be supported by the SNP, and if they do, then unionist Labour voters will punish them for it. 

It's a little more complex than that. If Scottish politics settles on a unionist-nationalist axis, with the SNP standing in one corner and the Scottish Tories (who for many working class conservatives were actually detoxified in the referendum) breathing down Labour's neck, then what need is there for Labour in Scotland? What about 'Orange Labour' (something always there but now exposed in Labour's decomposition)? Having 'IRA sympathisers' in the top job is not exactly going to be endearing to whatever is left of their west central Scotland party machine.

Labour keep making an assumption they will always be there and that they always have a constituency of voters no matter what they do or don't do. They really ought to be a little concerned with what's happened this last week.

You claim it's more complex and then bring out the laughable notion that there is only a unionist & nationalist divide, and there is no longer a need for a party that a) isn't Tory b) doesn't want independence - just so happening to be the majority of Scotland. As a Tory Separatist it just sounds like wishful thinking. If the Tories are so detoxified why are they still languishing in third place?

[Leftbehind]

I'm not saying Labour should loudly proclaim that they've given up on Scotland. And it sure would be nice if they could win back a few seats there as well. But I'm getting sick and tired of this bogus narrative that Labour absolutely needs to "reconquer" Scotland of they're doomed forever. That's a flat out lie and can be contradicted with basic math. Even if Labour had won every single seat in the entire Scotland, you'd still end up with Prime Minister Cameron, because he just won enough seats in England and Wales for an absolute majority.

So I don't give a crap if you don't want to have to deal with those nasty SNPers. The primary goal of any sane British leftist right now should be to stop the Tories before they completely wreck public services and the welfare system. If you're more concerned about something else, that means you're part of the problem.

Bloody hell, have you even been paying attention? It's not a case of not wanting to deal with "nasty" SNPers (I actually quite welcome their influence in parliament), but there was no doubting that association with the SNP, trumped up by the Tory press, cost Labour in SNP-phobic England, so how on earth does that help us fight the Tories? Yes, let's fight the Tories by losing Labour-leaning voters to them! Great idea.

Anyway, polls:

YouGov CON 39 (-2), LAB 31 (+1), UKIP 16 (+3), LD 6 (-1)
ComRes CON 42 (+2), LAB 30 (+1), UKIP 13 (=), LD 7 (-1),  SNP 5 (=), GRN 3 (-1)
Opinum CON 37 (-1), LAB 32 (+1), UKIP 14 (+1), LD 6 (-2), SNP 5 (=), GRN 4 (=)

Not exactly amazing, but not terrible either, considering this week's been dreadful. 

[Leftbehind]

I'm not saying Labour should loudly proclaim that they've given up on Scotland. And it sure would be nice if they could win back a few seats there as well. But I'm getting sick and tired of this bogus narrative that Labour absolutely needs to "reconquer" Scotland of they're doomed forever. That's a flat out lie and can be contradicted with basic math. Even if Labour had won every single seat in the entire Scotland, you'd still end up with Prime Minister Cameron, because he just won enough seats in England and Wales for an absolute majority.

So I don't give a crap if you don't want to have to deal with those nasty SNPers. The primary goal of any sane British leftist right now should be to stop the Tories before they completely wreck public services and the welfare system. If you're more concerned about something else, that means you're part of the problem.

Bloody hell, have you even been paying attention? It's not a case of not wanting to deal with "nasty" SNPers (I actually quite welcome their influence in parliament), but there was no doubting that association with the SNP, trumped up by the Tory press, cost Labour in SNP-phobic England, so how on earth does that help us fight the Tories? Yes, let's fight the Tories by losing Labour-leaning voters to them! Great idea.

I highly doubt association with SNP is the first thing the marginal Middle England voter is thinking about when deciding to vote Torie. I can envision why that might be a problem (especially after a Lab-SNP coalition happens), but that's far from being the main issue. Maybe Labour should be concerned about the image they are themselves projecting, before thinking about how another party's negative image is affecting them.

It wasn't the first thing, but it was employed during the campaign to some effect - likely to be even more so now the SNP are looking to a hold another referendum, to Tory opposition. The prospect (yes, voters don't ignore it until it's actually happened), inflated by the Tories, was a problem for Labour at May's election when all the safe Blairites were in charge, and their image projection was carefully media-managed.

I do not see that a Labour minority government, dependent upon SNP acceptance that a Labour government would be better than a Conservative one, would be impossible.

The British hostility to Irish nationalism, in 1886-1914, was considerably stronger than English antipathy to the SNP. It did not prevent Liberal minority governments being formed in 1892-95 and 1910-14.

It's not impossible, no, but there's a reason the Tories ran with it.