Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Time for Labour to make a clean break from its economic pas

SystemSystem Posts: 11,002
edited May 2015 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Time for Labour to make a clean break from its economic past

My bold prediction for the 2020 General Election, the economy will dominate it, as much as it did this year, even if the economy is performing badly, which will be particularly bad news if your name is Liam Byrne, as the argument will be framed in terms of the situation the Tories inherited in 2010.

Read the full story here


«13456

Comments

  • aiming for a first
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    edited May 2015
    It seems notable that the crucial moment for some is that Labour refused to admit they spent too much, but there are plenty of voices on the left saying the problem is the opposite - that they did not defend enough that they did not overspend.

    On Chukka, I wonder if he just naturally appears a bit sneery to me, like an equivalent to what is termed 'resting b****face'. He should work on that. Unless it's an accurate reflection of his opinions, which would be a deeper problem.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,697
    edited May 2015
    Second - Like Ed?

    No, third like Nicola.
  • reeves also has the most offputting voice in uk politics.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Also ran...
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,969

    reeves also has the most offputting voice in uk politics.

    They said that about Thatcher.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559

    FPT

    Watched Leslie, Osborne is on for a free ride.

    Would like to see one of the interviewers ask him if he accepts Labour spent too much.

    The answer will tell us all we need to know.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,697
    edited May 2015
    "My bold prediction for the 2020 General Election, the economy will dominate it, as much as it did this year, even if the economy is performing badly, which will be particularly bad news if your name is Liam Byrne, as the argument will be framed in terms of the situation the Tories inherited in 2010."

    Liam Byrne's letter will be like the Winter Of Discontent - The Tories will still be reminding voters about it in another ten years time.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559

    reeves also has the most offputting voice in uk politics.

    They said that about Thatcher.
    and EdM :-)
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,697
    Plato said:

    Also ran...

    Like... ? ;)

  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584

    I thought Labour had made a clean break from their spending past?

    They pretended it never happened.

  • MP_SEMP_SE Posts: 3,642

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB The Tories did clearly lose votes to UKIP, they just replaced some with switchers from the Liberals, once an EU referendum has occurred, especially if a narrow IN with Cameron leading the IN campaign, UKIP will again be a headache for the Tories

    I don't think so. A large part of driver of the traditional Tory eurosceptic constituency is the feeling of, "No-one asked us about this. We weren't told the truth in 1975. This isn't what the people want." A referendum resulting in an IN vote would completely lance that boil and you would see the mainstream right pragmatically accepting the outcome.
    It would depend on what happened after an IN vote. If the EU does not reform, their share of global GDP declines further, UK trade to the rest of the world increases, immigration running at 300k per year, etc., you can be sure euroscepticism will not disappear.

    I could see the case for leaving becoming even greater. The concessions gained from the EU having not worked would make an argument for leaving even stronger.
  • isamisam Posts: 40,731
    Good lord it's like the list of runners in an all weather seller or banded race on a miserable February afternoon
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 5,414
    kle4 said:

    It seems notable that the crucial moment for some is that Labour refused to admit they spent too much, but there are plenty of voices on the left saying the problem is the opposite - that they did not defend enough that they did not overspend.

    On Chukka, I wonder if he just naturally appears a bit sneery to me, like an equivalent to what is termed 'resting b****face'. He should work on that. Unless it's an accurate reflection of his opinions, which would be a deeper problem.

    I still remember the fact he couldn't pronounce Worcester correctly. I wonder if that's really someone who's going to go down well outside of London.
  • john_zimsjohn_zims Posts: 3,399
    edited May 2015
    From Labourlist.

    'Tom Watson is one of the frontrunners for Deputy Leader, as we wrote yesterday. Whilst he’s yet to formally announce his candidacy, it certainly seems like he will be – as he’s started crowdfunding his Deputy Leadership bid.'


    Has Harman said she will be resigning as well or does she have to get re-elected?
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 5,414
    john_zims said:

    From Labourlist.

    'Tom Watson is one of the frontrunners for Deputy Leader, as we wrote yesterday. Whilst he’s yet to formally announce his candidacy, it certainly seems like he will be – as he’s started crowdfunding his Deputy Leadership bid.'


    Has Harman said she will be resigning as well?

    Yes. I think she confirmed it on Friday.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited May 2015
    After the disbelief and ranting at the Tories on Friday / Saturday, my twitter feed is now full with Labour supporters desperately again trying to convince anybody who will listen (on twitter) that Labour definitely didn't spend too much when they were in power.

    Maybe they should listen to Frank Field.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    All of them political dwarves incapable of saving the Labour party.
  • CopperSulphateCopperSulphate Posts: 1,119
    Cripes never seen those clips before, Miliband took a complete pasting. Magic. Shows what happens when ordinary people are allowed on the telly.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 5,414
    edited May 2015
    How does the Labour leadership vote work now that there has to be 1 man and 1 woman in each of the roles? (Am I right in thinking that got through?)

    What happens if a woman wins the leadership but no men have run for the deputy leadership (or the man that did run comes last?) or vice versa. Presumably that could mean that someone who hasn't done well in the deputy vote could be made deputy leader regardless?

    What if, say, Chuka Umunna wins the leadership and Tom Watson wins, say, 60% of the deputy vote? Presumably Tom Watson is then not allowed to become deputy leader and it goes to a woman who has a significant minority of votes?

    All seems a bit dubious.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559

    After the disbelief and ranting at the Tories on Friday / Saturday, my twitter feed is now full with Labour supporters desperately again trying to convince anybody who will listen (on twitter) that Labour definitely didn't spend too much when they were in power.

    Maybe they should listen to Frank Field.

    Their problem is that if they accept the hard fact that they overspent, then what's the point of their party since they'll have no more largesse to spend on pet projects.

    There is no more monery.
  • john_zimsjohn_zims Posts: 3,399
    kle4

    '.It seems notable that the crucial moment for some is that Labour refused to admit they spent too much, but there are plenty of voices on the left saying the problem is the opposite - that they did not defend enough that they did not overspend.'

    Even more absurd is the claim from Paul Flynn.

    'It was entirely true that the past Labour Government did not waste money. But politics is not determined by truths. It is informed by perceptions. '
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559
    RodCrosby said:

    All of them political dwarves incapable of saving the Labour party.

    yup
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    edited May 2015
    john_zims said:

    Has Harman said she will be resigning as well or does she have to get re-elected?

    I believe Harriet Harman resigned as deputy Labour leader on Friday? - Once the new leader is in place she will step down apparently.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,704

    After the disbelief and ranting at the Tories on Friday / Saturday, my twitter feed is now full with Labour supporters desperately again trying to convince anybody who will listen (on twitter) that Labour definitely didn't spend too much when they were in power.

    Maybe they should listen to Frank Field.

    Indeed.. it's all very well all these sorts wanting to go back to new labour, but it's the members (and the unions) which decide who gets to be leader.

    Going to be very interesting, remember the most 'left' candidate in Red Ed won last time.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    kle4 said:

    It seems notable that the crucial moment for some is that Labour refused to admit they spent too much, but there are plenty of voices on the left saying the problem is the opposite - that they did not defend enough that they did not overspend.

    Labour did not overspend by historical or international comparisons. Until the global financial crisis hit, Labour was running a lower deficit than the preceding Conservative government, and a lower deficit than the present Conservative government.

    The problem, as Lord Prescott observes, and as has been noted on pb in the past, is that Labour's choosing to say nothing at all about the economy for the past five years has meant that the Conservatives' narrative became established.
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584

    It's amazing the relief one can feel, watching the video, and knowing that Miliband will not be running the country.

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,969
    edited May 2015
    Interesting article in the Sunday Times, about Dave being nice to the Lib Dems, and trying to get them decent jobs, reading between the lines, Dave will appoint

    Nick Clegg as President of the EU

    Danny Alexander as Secretary General of the UN

    David Laws as Secretary General of NATO

    Vince Cable as British Ambassador to the Islamic State
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559
    MP_SE said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB The Tories did clearly lose votes to UKIP, they just replaced some with switchers from the Liberals, once an EU referendum has occurred, especially if a narrow IN with Cameron leading the IN campaign, UKIP will again be a headache for the Tories

    I don't think so. A large part of driver of the traditional Tory eurosceptic constituency is the feeling of, "No-one asked us about this. We weren't told the truth in 1975. This isn't what the people want." A referendum resulting in an IN vote would completely lance that boil and you would see the mainstream right pragmatically accepting the outcome.
    It would depend on what happened after an IN vote. If the EU does not reform, their share of global GDP declines further, UK trade to the rest of the world increases, immigration running at 300k per year, etc., you can be sure euroscepticism will not disappear.

    I could see the case for leaving becoming even greater. The concessions gained from the EU having not worked would make an argument for leaving even stronger.
    Why would anyone vote for IN ?

    We all know the EU will gives us a second chance to get the right answer. We should all vote OUT to maximise Cameron's negotiating hand.

    It's our patriotic duty.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737
    Mann: Labour must not pick a former SPAD. Comes out for Jarvis...
  • CopperSulphateCopperSulphate Posts: 1,119
    Thinking about it I'd say that there's no chance that Labour will elect someone who will accept Labour were at fault for the economy because they deep down believe that they did nothing wrong.

    As far as they are concerned increasing spending actually reduces the deficit, which was caused entirely by the banks who are just Tories anyway.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737


    It's amazing the relief one can feel, watching the video, and knowing that Miliband will not be running the country.

    (with the SNP)
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,047
    kle4 said:

    It seems notable that the crucial moment for some is that Labour refused to admit they spent too much, but there are plenty of voices on the left saying the problem is the opposite - that they did not defend enough that they did not overspend.

    On Chukka, I wonder if he just naturally appears a bit sneery to me, like an equivalent to what is termed 'resting b****face'. He should work on that. Unless it's an accurate reflection of his opinions, which would be a deeper problem.

    I think it is, as he's got in trouble in the past for comments that match the sneers. Insecure, overcompensating.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559

    kle4 said:

    It seems notable that the crucial moment for some is that Labour refused to admit they spent too much, but there are plenty of voices on the left saying the problem is the opposite - that they did not defend enough that they did not overspend.

    Labour did not overspend by historical or international comparisons. Until the global financial crisis hit, Labour was running a lower deficit than the preceding Conservative government, and a lower deficit than the present Conservative government.

    The problem, as Lord Prescott observes, and as has been noted on pb in the past, is that Labour's choosing to say nothing at all about the economy for the past five years has meant that the Conservatives' narrative became established.
    So it's established.

    And the more labour stick their head in the sand and don't recognise what the voters see the longer they'll have to wait for a comeback.
  • CopperSulphateCopperSulphate Posts: 1,119

    kle4 said:

    It seems notable that the crucial moment for some is that Labour refused to admit they spent too much, but there are plenty of voices on the left saying the problem is the opposite - that they did not defend enough that they did not overspend.

    Labour did not overspend by historical or international comparisons. Until the global financial crisis hit, Labour was running a lower deficit than the preceding Conservative government, and a lower deficit than the present Conservative government.

    The problem, as Lord Prescott observes, and as has been noted on pb in the past, is that Labour's choosing to say nothing at all about the economy for the past five years has meant that the Conservatives' narrative became established.
    They created a massive unsustainable banking boom which almost doubled tax take and yet they still spent more on top of it. Then when the bubble burst and tax take went back to normal they wonder why there was a massive deficit.

    And their solution is to spend even more.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274

    Cripes never seen those clips before, Miliband took a complete pasting. Magic. Shows what happens when ordinary people are allowed on the telly.

    You alright there Boris.
  • RodCrosbyRodCrosby Posts: 7,737

    kle4 said:

    It seems notable that the crucial moment for some is that Labour refused to admit they spent too much, but there are plenty of voices on the left saying the problem is the opposite - that they did not defend enough that they did not overspend.

    On Chukka, I wonder if he just naturally appears a bit sneery to me, like an equivalent to what is termed 'resting b****face'. He should work on that. Unless it's an accurate reflection of his opinions, which would be a deeper problem.

    I think it is, as he's got in trouble in the past for comments that match the sneers. Insecure, overcompensating.
    another obvious narcissist, like Brand.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,047

    After the disbelief and ranting at the Tories on Friday / Saturday, my twitter feed is now full with Labour supporters desperately again trying to convince anybody who will listen (on twitter) that Labour definitely didn't spend too much when they were in power.

    Maybe they should listen to Frank Field.

    Their problem is that if they accept the hard fact that they overspent, then what's the point of their party since they'll have no more largesse to spend on pet projects.

    There is no more monery.
    Exactly. It's like the Tories admitting to being 'the nasty party'.

  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    kle4 said:

    It seems notable that the crucial moment for some is that Labour refused to admit they spent too much, but there are plenty of voices on the left saying the problem is the opposite - that they did not defend enough that they did not overspend.

    Labour did not overspend by historical or international comparisons. Until the global financial crisis hit, Labour was running a lower deficit than the preceding Conservative government, and a lower deficit than the present Conservative government.

    The problem, as Lord Prescott observes, and as has been noted on pb in the past, is that Labour's choosing to say nothing at all about the economy for the past five years has meant that the Conservatives' narrative became established.
    So it's established.

    And the more labour stick their head in the sand and don't recognise what the voters see the longer they'll have to wait for a comeback.
    Whether or not Labour overspent, the point that Labour did not make any sort of economic case for the past five years means that voters perceive it to be true.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    kle4 said:

    It seems notable that the crucial moment for some is that Labour refused to admit they spent too much, but there are plenty of voices on the left saying the problem is the opposite - that they did not defend enough that they did not overspend.

    Labour did not overspend by historical or international comparisons. Until the global financial crisis hit, Labour was running a lower deficit than the preceding Conservative government, and a lower deficit than the present Conservative government.

    The problem, as Lord Prescott observes, and as has been noted on pb in the past, is that Labour's choosing to say nothing at all about the economy for the past five years has meant that the Conservatives' narrative became established.
    So it's established.

    And the more labour stick their head in the sand and don't recognise what the voters see the longer they'll have to wait for a comeback.
    Whether or not Labour overspent, the point that Labour did not make any sort of economic case for the past five years means that voters perceive it to be true.
    What's the solution then? Say something they don't believe and say they did overspend, or just wait it out and hope the 'Last Labour government' excuse does not work as well for the Tories in 2020? (And make no mistake it will be used, as shown by Labour still using Thatcher's actions at times to try to convince voters in 2010 - but it is also true it won't be as effective)
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    MP_SE said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB The Tories did clearly lose votes to UKIP, they just replaced some with switchers from the Liberals, once an EU referendum has occurred, especially if a narrow IN with Cameron leading the IN campaign, UKIP will again be a headache for the Tories

    I don't think so. A large part of driver of the traditional Tory eurosceptic constituency is the feeling of, "No-one asked us about this. We weren't told the truth in 1975. This isn't what the people want." A referendum resulting in an IN vote would completely lance that boil and you would see the mainstream right pragmatically accepting the outcome.
    It would depend on what happened after an IN vote. If the EU does not reform, their share of global GDP declines further, UK trade to the rest of the world increases, immigration running at 300k per year, etc., you can be sure euroscepticism will not disappear.

    I could see the case for leaving becoming even greater. The concessions gained from the EU having not worked would make an argument for leaving even stronger.
    Why would anyone vote for IN ?

    We all know the EU will gives us a second chance to get the right answer. We should all vote OUT to maximise Cameron's negotiating hand.

    It's our patriotic duty.
    Quite a lot. Apart from the merits or otherwise of the EU:

    1) Exit would provoke a Scottish Indyref mark 2; possibly also annoying Wales and NI. This would end the UK.

    2) Referendums are often treated as a way to kick the party in power, whatever the issue

    3) Referendums usually have undecideds breaking for the status quo

    4) Polls on the EU exit have noticeably shifted in favour of In.
  • steve_garnersteve_garner Posts: 1,019
    Not only did Ed refuse to acknowledge overspending but they just refused to engage in any debate about the economy. Witness their rebuttal of the various letters from the business leaders. Instead of addressing issues raised by the employers of millions of voters they just rubbished them as tax avoiding wealthy Tories. Instead they preferred to indulge their obsession with endorsements from celebrity chefs and comedians.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    In that clip, Ed also shows his completely lack of awareness / understanding and why he came out with the "why do companies need to pay dividends".

    His counter argument for why Canada and Australia were fine was well they didn't have exposure to financial services...i don't need to go any further.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559

    kle4 said:

    It seems notable that the crucial moment for some is that Labour refused to admit they spent too much, but there are plenty of voices on the left saying the problem is the opposite - that they did not defend enough that they did not overspend.

    Labour did not overspend by historical or international comparisons. Until the global financial crisis hit, Labour was running a lower deficit than the preceding Conservative government, and a lower deficit than the present Conservative government.

    The problem, as Lord Prescott observes, and as has been noted on pb in the past, is that Labour's choosing to say nothing at all about the economy for the past five years has meant that the Conservatives' narrative became established.
    So it's established.

    And the more labour stick their head in the sand and don't recognise what the voters see the longer they'll have to wait for a comeback.
    Whether or not Labour overspent, the point that Labour did not make any sort of economic case for the past five years means that voters perceive it to be true.
    Like all Labourites you're avoiding the question. Until you tackle it head on you are trapped with voters not trusting you to do it again. And until you get that trust you're hamstrung on the biggest issue to all voters, their pockets.

  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789

    kle4 said:

    It seems notable that the crucial moment for some is that Labour refused to admit they spent too much, but there are plenty of voices on the left saying the problem is the opposite - that they did not defend enough that they did not overspend.

    Labour did not overspend by historical or international comparisons. Until the global financial crisis hit, Labour was running a lower deficit than the preceding Conservative government, and a lower deficit than the present Conservative government.

    The problem, as Lord Prescott observes, and as has been noted on pb in the past, is that Labour's choosing to say nothing at all about the economy for the past five years has meant that the Conservatives' narrative became established.
    If you watch the Crosby video one very perceptive comment he makes is that people don't vote on policies but they do vote on what policies say about what the candidate stands for. For Labour to have been saying they didn't overspend was lethal regardless of the narrative or the merits of the economic argument.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    Someone commented yesterday that John Mann seems to never turn down an interview request as he was on quite a bit - I see he's on the Daily Politics today as well. Busy man.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    edited May 2015
    MaxPB (Previous Thread) Labour won Ealing Central and Acton and Enfield N in London too, both with plenty of Indians. If the wwc did not elect a UKIP candidate in northern seats when Miliband was leader they are not going to do so under Umunna either
  • Hello- Just a few minutes to post again. I said on Wednesday night after being out in a both Lab/Tory and Lib Dem/ Tory marginals for a week that it would boil down to 4 groups on who would win and I think that is exactly what happened.

    1. The 25% of UKIP voters who were wavering voting Tory- A large proportion especially in the east and south east ended up voting Tory.
    2. The Labour voters who didn't vote last time. This was a big proportion of the labour vote and it was always a big 'if' on them voting. I think it's fair to say that they didn't- the turnout was roughly the same in the England and Wales (Scotland was up but for different reasons).
    3. The labour voters who didn't like EDM, would they vote labour? It will be interesting reading some more views, but I think that there was a fair proportion, especially in the midlands, who ended up voting Tory
    4. Con/ Lib Dem marginal - will the labour vote stay with the Lib Dem. If you've read the Times you will how much the Labour vote increased in these seats. I think it's a fair conclusion to draw that there was some tactical unwind of core labour people who couldn't forgive the Lib Dems for being in the coalition with the Tories. However some of the swings here were staggering and I think the SNP/ Labour warnings really shifted votes here in a way that few could imagine.

    As for going forward and 2020, it will be much harder for Labour on the maths side due to the new boundaries and the fact that the Tories did well in increasing there vote in the marginals. At the moment Labour have a brand that attracts but policies and leaders that repel. They have to break away from a view held by many Labour voters that I talked to that they represent London and an intellectual elite who know how to live your life so much better than you do. Not agreeing to a EU referendum played into that view. The message has to move away from minorities and special interest groups. I think 2020 will be a pivotal election for Labour, a poor election will embed the lose of Scotland and open the door for UKIP in the North. A kneejerk decision on a leader without reviewing and understanding the lessons form 2015 is a great gamble.
  • FlightpathlFlightpathl Posts: 1,243
    Tristram.
    Brilliant move for Labour - appoint a Nick Clegg lookalike.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559

    MP_SE said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB The Tories did clearly lose votes to UKIP, they just replaced some with switchers from the Liberals, once an EU referendum has occurred, especially if a narrow IN with Cameron leading the IN campaign, UKIP will again be a headache for the Tories

    I don't think so. A large part of driver of the traditional Tory eurosceptic constituency is the feeling of, "No-one asked us about this. We weren't told the truth in 1975. This isn't what the people want." A referendum resulting in an IN vote would completely lance that boil and you would see the mainstream right pragmatically accepting the outcome.
    It would depend on what happened after an IN vote. If the EU does not reform, their share of global GDP declines further, UK trade to the rest of the world increases, immigration running at 300k per year, etc., you can be sure euroscepticism will not disappear.

    I could see the case for leaving becoming even greater. The concessions gained from the EU having not worked would make an argument for leaving even stronger.
    Why would anyone vote for IN ?

    We all know the EU will gives us a second chance to get the right answer. We should all vote OUT to maximise Cameron's negotiating hand.

    It's our patriotic duty.
    Quite a lot. Apart from the merits or otherwise of the EU:

    1) Exit would provoke a Scottish Indyref mark 2; possibly also annoying Wales and NI. This would end the UK.

    2) Referendums are often treated as a way to kick the party in power, whatever the issue

    3) Referendums usually have undecideds breaking for the status quo

    4) Polls on the EU exit have noticeably shifted in favour of In.
    Lol

    1, who gives a shit about Wales, the Jocks or the paddies, they have votes let them cast them

    2. The referendum has been declared it's now in play with all the inherent risks

    3. certainly, but this is an EU referendum we get to vote lots of times

    4. yes so that's why we should vote out to secure the best deal going.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited May 2015

    kle4 said:

    It seems notable that the crucial moment for some is that Labour refused to admit they spent too much, but there are plenty of voices on the left saying the problem is the opposite - that they did not defend enough that they did not overspend.

    Labour did not overspend by historical or international comparisons. Until the global financial crisis hit, Labour was running a lower deficit than the preceding Conservative government, and a lower deficit than the present Conservative government.

    The problem, as Lord Prescott observes, and as has been noted on pb in the past, is that Labour's choosing to say nothing at all about the economy for the past five years has meant that the Conservatives' narrative became established.
    If you watch the Crosby video one very perceptive comment he makes is that people don't vote on policies but they do vote on what policies say about what the candidate stands for. For Labour to have been saying they didn't overspend was lethal regardless of the narrative or the merits of the economic argument.
    The long Crosby video is an absolute must watch for anybody interested in politics. You don't have to like the Tories or him, but he says a lot of very perceptive things that have come to pass 2 years on.

    All the talk down thread about various immigrant groups and how they vote. He tells a story of how in the past he managed to organize a win in an area dominated by first generation immigrants.

    I would be interested to see if the Tories tried the same kind of targeted approach in this GE and if they worked at all...hence why I was interested in the Exit Poll demographic data (which we wont get).
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300
    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    It seems notable that the crucial moment for some is that Labour refused to admit they spent too much, but there are plenty of voices on the left saying the problem is the opposite - that they did not defend enough that they did not overspend.

    Labour did not overspend by historical or international comparisons. Until the global financial crisis hit, Labour was running a lower deficit than the preceding Conservative government, and a lower deficit than the present Conservative government.

    The problem, as Lord Prescott observes, and as has been noted on pb in the past, is that Labour's choosing to say nothing at all about the economy for the past five years has meant that the Conservatives' narrative became established.
    So it's established.

    And the more labour stick their head in the sand and don't recognise what the voters see the longer they'll have to wait for a comeback.
    Whether or not Labour overspent, the point that Labour did not make any sort of economic case for the past five years means that voters perceive it to be true.
    What's the solution then? Say something they don't believe and say they did overspend, or just wait it out and hope the 'Last Labour government' excuse does not work as well for the Tories in 2020? (And make no mistake it will be used, as shown by Labour still using Thatcher's actions at times to try to convince voters in 2010 - but it is also true it won't be as effective)
    Not sure tbh. Another 5 years to 2020 is a long time in politics. Before polling day, I'd have rushed out print adverts just showing huge graphs showing the deficit (and maybe debt too) for the recent past showing it lower under Labour than the preceding and subsequent Conservative governments, and with a large arrow helpfully pointing out when the global crisis hit.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408
    Watching Kendall, she talks about Labour not setting out a positive enough alternative, and people liking someone talking about the positive things they are going to do - is that an implicit U-turn that the Tories did have a positive message in addition to their negative attacks?
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    For those who still can't believe it telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11593424/Election-2015-sketch-Look.-None-of-the-following-things-actually-happened.-Did-they.html
    Look. I’m really sorry. I know this is going to seem like an unusual question. After all, this is a newspaper. We’re the ones who are supposed to tell you the news, not the other way round.

    But seriously, because I need to know: did any of that actually happen?

    Really. I mean it. The general election. Did it happen? Is it true? I mean, I watched it happen, but I’m just not convinced. The Conservatives winning a majority – that can’t have happened. Ed Miliband, Nigel Farage, Nick Clegg resigning – that can’t have happened. Ed Balls losing his seat – that can’t have happened. It just can’t. It’s not plausible. We had opinion polls every day for months telling us that it wasn’t going to go like this. They can’t all have been wrong. Not all of them. ....
  • MP_SEMP_SE Posts: 3,642
    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB (Previous Thread) Labour won Ealing Central and Acton and Enfield N in London too, both with plenty of Indians. If the wwc did elect a UKIP candidate in northern seats when Miliband was leader they are not going to do so under Umunna either

    May I draw your attention to this quote from Martin Luther King:

    "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character".

    The sooner Labour realises this the better.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789

    MP_SE said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB The Tories did clearly lose votes to UKIP, they just replaced some with switchers from the Liberals, once an EU referendum has occurred, especially if a narrow IN with Cameron leading the IN campaign, UKIP will again be a headache for the Tories

    I don't think so. A large part of driver of the traditional Tory eurosceptic constituency is the feeling of, "No-one asked us about this. We weren't told the truth in 1975. This isn't what the people want." A referendum resulting in an IN vote would completely lance that boil and you would see the mainstream right pragmatically accepting the outcome.
    It would depend on what happened after an IN vote. If the EU does not reform, their share of global GDP declines further, UK trade to the rest of the world increases, immigration running at 300k per year, etc., you can be sure euroscepticism will not disappear.

    I could see the case for leaving becoming even greater. The concessions gained from the EU having not worked would make an argument for leaving even stronger.
    Why would anyone vote for IN ?

    We all know the EU will gives us a second chance to get the right answer. We should all vote OUT to maximise Cameron's negotiating hand.

    It's our patriotic duty.
    Quite a lot. Apart from the merits or otherwise of the EU:

    1) Exit would provoke a Scottish Indyref mark 2; possibly also annoying Wales and NI. This would end the UK.
    Given Nicola Sturgeon's quire reasonable position on wanting a double-majority to be the referendum test the campaign is destined to be subject to the same dynamics as we've just seen. The English will be told to vote IN to save the UK.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,704

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    It seems notable that the crucial moment for some is that Labour refused to admit they spent too much, but there are plenty of voices on the left saying the problem is the opposite - that they did not defend enough that they did not overspend.

    Labour did not overspend by historical or international comparisons. Until the global financial crisis hit, Labour was running a lower deficit than the preceding Conservative government, and a lower deficit than the present Conservative government.

    The problem, as Lord Prescott observes, and as has been noted on pb in the past, is that Labour's choosing to say nothing at all about the economy for the past five years has meant that the Conservatives' narrative became established.
    So it's established.

    And the more labour stick their head in the sand and don't recognise what the voters see the longer they'll have to wait for a comeback.
    Whether or not Labour overspent, the point that Labour did not make any sort of economic case for the past five years means that voters perceive it to be true.
    What's the solution then? Say something they don't believe and say they did overspend, or just wait it out and hope the 'Last Labour government' excuse does not work as well for the Tories in 2020? (And make no mistake it will be used, as shown by Labour still using Thatcher's actions at times to try to convince voters in 2010 - but it is also true it won't be as effective)
    Not sure tbh. Another 5 years to 2020 is a long time in politics. Before polling day, I'd have rushed out print adverts just showing huge graphs showing the deficit (and maybe debt too) for the recent past showing it lower under Labour than the preceding and subsequent Conservative governments, and with a large arrow helpfully pointing out when the global crisis hit.
    Really? Graphs and pointers? That'll win people over? Are you Eoin Clarke?
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,047

    kle4 said:

    It seems notable that the crucial moment for some is that Labour refused to admit they spent too much, but there are plenty of voices on the left saying the problem is the opposite - that they did not defend enough that they did not overspend.

    Labour did not overspend by historical or international comparisons. Until the global financial crisis hit, Labour was running a lower deficit than the preceding Conservative government, and a lower deficit than the present Conservative government.

    The problem, as Lord Prescott observes, and as has been noted on pb in the past, is that Labour's choosing to say nothing at all about the economy for the past five years has meant that the Conservatives' narrative became established.
    So it's established.

    And the more labour stick their head in the sand and don't recognise what the voters see the longer they'll have to wait for a comeback.
    Whether or not Labour overspent, the point that Labour did not make any sort of economic case for the past five years means that voters perceive it to be true.
    That's because there is no economic defence to be made. The argument that they DIDN'T overspend is that Britain's public services were so awful after Tory rule that they had to make the most of boom time and spend more to 'fix the roof whilst the sun was shining'. Which is fine, but the corollary of that is that now, we can stop spending, because the investment has been made, and the sun is no longer shining. And Labour don't want us to stop spending.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 91,408

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    It seems notable that the crucial moment for some is that Labour refused to admit they spent too much, but there are plenty of voices on the left saying the problem is the opposite - that they did not defend enough that they did not overspend.

    Labour did not overspend by historical or international comparisons. Until the global financial crisis hit, Labour was running a lower deficit than the preceding Conservative government, and a lower deficit than the present Conservative government.

    The problem, as Lord Prescott observes, and as has been noted on pb in the past, is that Labour's choosing to say nothing at all about the economy for the past five years has meant that the Conservatives' narrative became established.
    So it's established.

    And the more labour stick their head in the sand and don't recognise what the voters see the longer they'll have to wait for a comeback.
    Whether or not Labour overspent, the point that Labour did not make any sort of economic case for the past five years means that voters perceive it to be true.
    What's the solution then? Say something they don't believe and say they did overspend, or just wait it out and hope the 'Last Labour government' excuse does not work as well for the Tories in 2020? (And make no mistake it will be used, as shown by Labour still using Thatcher's actions at times to try to convince voters in 2010 - but it is also true it won't be as effective)
    Not sure tbh. Another 5 years to 2020 is a long time in politics. Before polling day, I'd have rushed out print adverts just showing huge graphs showing the deficit (and maybe debt too) for the recent past showing it lower under Labour than the preceding and subsequent Conservative governments, and with a large arrow helpfully pointing out when the global crisis hit.
    Would have been worth a try I guess. Even if it did not erase the established narrative on what Labour did, it would make the point more than mere words about Tory failure.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    It seems notable that the crucial moment for some is that Labour refused to admit they spent too much, but there are plenty of voices on the left saying the problem is the opposite - that they did not defend enough that they did not overspend.

    Labour did not overspend by historical or international comparisons. Until the global financial crisis hit, Labour was running a lower deficit than the preceding Conservative government, and a lower deficit than the present Conservative government.

    The problem, as Lord Prescott observes, and as has been noted on pb in the past, is that Labour's choosing to say nothing at all about the economy for the past five years has meant that the Conservatives' narrative became established.
    So it's established.

    And the more labour stick their head in the sand and don't recognise what the voters see the longer they'll have to wait for a comeback.
    Whether or not Labour overspent, the point that Labour did not make any sort of economic case for the past five years means that voters perceive it to be true.
    What's the solution then? Say something they don't believe and say they did overspend, or just wait it out and hope the 'Last Labour government' excuse does not work as well for the Tories in 2020? (And make no mistake it will be used, as shown by Labour still using Thatcher's actions at times to try to convince voters in 2010 - but it is also true it won't be as effective)
    Not sure tbh. Another 5 years to 2020 is a long time in politics. Before polling day, I'd have rushed out print adverts just showing huge graphs showing the deficit (and maybe debt too) for the recent past showing it lower under Labour than the preceding and subsequent Conservative governments, and with a large arrow helpfully pointing out when the global crisis hit.
    It too late...the narrative had been set by then.
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 5,997
    edited May 2015
    Naz Shah does seem very impressive and I understand she took a lot of personal abuse in taking down Galloway. If she stood in my constituency I would be happy to vote Labour.
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584
    edited May 2015
    For all the noise about Caroline Lucas regaining her seat with more votes, in Brighton & Hove council the Greens have been swept aside...

    The Labour Party is the largest on Brighton and Hove City Council, winning 23 of the 54 seats in the local elections.

    The Conservatives are the next largest party, with 20 seats, and the Greens have 11.


    Brighton & Hove news
  • TedTed Posts: 8

    kle4 said:

    It seems notable that the crucial moment for some is that Labour refused to admit they spent too much, but there are plenty of voices on the left saying the problem is the opposite - that they did not defend enough that they did not overspend.

    Labour did not overspend by historical or international comparisons. Until the global financial crisis hit, Labour was running a lower deficit than the preceding Conservative government, and a lower deficit than the present Conservative government.

    The problem, as Lord Prescott observes, and as has been noted on pb in the past, is that Labour's choosing to say nothing at all about the economy for the past five years has meant that the Conservatives' narrative became established.
    They did overspend on historic terms - in 1991 when the previous global recession hit Major's government was running a surplus. Comparing the deficit in 97 with that in 2008 is to ignore the economic cycle, there should have been a surplus or very small deficit after a decade long boom. It made recovery harder, made cuts deeper, prolonged the recession. Bit it didn't cause it - that was caused by the Greenspan/Brown bubble of low interest rates , cheap credit.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559

    MP_SE said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB The Tories did clearly lose votes to UKIP, they just replaced some with switchers from the Liberals, once an EU referendum has occurred, especially if a narrow IN with Cameron leading the IN campaign, UKIP will again be a headache for the Tories

    I don't think so. A large part of driver of the traditional Tory eurosceptic constituency is the feeling of, "No-one asked us about this. We weren't told the truth in 1975. This isn't what the people want." A referendum resulting in an IN vote would completely lance that boil and you would see the mainstream right pragmatically accepting the outcome.
    It would depend on what happened after an IN vote. If the EU does not reform, their share of global GDP declines further, UK trade to the rest of the world increases, immigration running at 300k per year, etc., you can be sure euroscepticism will not disappear.

    I could see the case for leaving becoming even greater. The concessions gained from the EU having not worked would make an argument for leaving even stronger.
    Why would anyone vote for IN ?

    We all know the EU will gives us a second chance to get the right answer. We should all vote OUT to maximise Cameron's negotiating hand.

    It's our patriotic duty.
    Quite a lot. Apart from the merits or otherwise of the EU:

    1) Exit would provoke a Scottish Indyref mark 2; possibly also annoying Wales and NI. This would end the UK.
    Given Nicola Sturgeon's quire reasonable position on wanting a double-majority to be the referendum test the campaign is destined to be subject to the same dynamics as we've just seen. The English will be told to vote IN to save the UK.
    Except the SNP will cuddle up to the EU to make an OUT more attractive.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,704

    MP_SE said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB The Tories did clearly lose votes to UKIP, they just replaced some with switchers from the Liberals, once an EU referendum has occurred, especially if a narrow IN with Cameron leading the IN campaign, UKIP will again be a headache for the Tories

    I don't think so. A large part of driver of the traditional Tory eurosceptic constituency is the feeling of, "No-one asked us about this. We weren't told the truth in 1975. This isn't what the people want." A referendum resulting in an IN vote would completely lance that boil and you would see the mainstream right pragmatically accepting the outcome.
    It would depend on what happened after an IN vote. If the EU does not reform, their share of global GDP declines further, UK trade to the rest of the world increases, immigration running at 300k per year, etc., you can be sure euroscepticism will not disappear.

    I could see the case for leaving becoming even greater. The concessions gained from the EU having not worked would make an argument for leaving even stronger.
    Why would anyone vote for IN ?

    We all know the EU will gives us a second chance to get the right answer. We should all vote OUT to maximise Cameron's negotiating hand.

    It's our patriotic duty.
    Quite a lot. Apart from the merits or otherwise of the EU:

    1) Exit would provoke a Scottish Indyref mark 2; possibly also annoying Wales and NI. This would end the UK.
    Given Nicola Sturgeon's quire reasonable position on wanting a double-majority to be the referendum test the campaign is destined to be subject to the same dynamics as we've just seen. The English will be told to vote IN to save the UK.
    What makes you think that the English want to save the UK by that point?
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    It seems notable that the crucial moment for some is that Labour refused to admit they spent too much, but there are plenty of voices on the left saying the problem is the opposite - that they did not defend enough that they did not overspend.

    Labour did not overspend by historical or international comparisons. Until the global financial crisis hit, Labour was running a lower deficit than the preceding Conservative government, and a lower deficit than the present Conservative government.

    The problem, as Lord Prescott observes, and as has been noted on pb in the past, is that Labour's choosing to say nothing at all about the economy for the past five years has meant that the Conservatives' narrative became established.
    So it's established.

    And the more labour stick their head in the sand and don't recognise what the voters see the longer they'll have to wait for a comeback.
    Whether or not Labour overspent, the point that Labour did not make any sort of economic case for the past five years means that voters perceive it to be true.
    What's the solution then? Say something they don't believe and say they did overspend, or just wait it out and hope the 'Last Labour government' excuse does not work as well for the Tories in 2020? (And make no mistake it will be used, as shown by Labour still using Thatcher's actions at times to try to convince voters in 2010 - but it is also true it won't be as effective)
    Not sure tbh. Another 5 years to 2020 is a long time in politics. Before polling day, I'd have rushed out print adverts just showing huge graphs showing the deficit (and maybe debt too) for the recent past showing it lower under Labour than the preceding and subsequent Conservative governments, and with a large arrow helpfully pointing out when the global crisis hit.
    It too late...the narrative had been set by then.
    Well yes, as some of us, including, we now learn, Lord Prescott, have been saying for years: Labour's "keep mum" tactic was always doomed to failure.

    Tin foil hat time -- my suspicion is this was agreed with the Blairites to prevent civil war, and the idea was that after his presumed triumph leading Better Together, Alistair Darling would return to London as SCotE and (Miliband's rival) Balls would be consigned to history.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    It seems notable that the crucial moment for some is that Labour refused to admit they spent too much, but there are plenty of voices on the left saying the problem is the opposite - that they did not defend enough that they did not overspend.

    Labour did not overspend by historical or international comparisons. Until the global financial crisis hit, Labour was running a lower deficit than the preceding Conservative government, and a lower deficit than the present Conservative government.

    The problem, as Lord Prescott observes, and as has been noted on pb in the past, is that Labour's choosing to say nothing at all about the economy for the past five years has meant that the Conservatives' narrative became established.
    So it's established.

    And the more labour stick their head in the sand and don't recognise what the voters see the longer they'll have to wait for a comeback.
    Whether or not Labour overspent, the point that Labour did not make any sort of economic case for the past five years means that voters perceive it to be true.
    What's the solution then? Say something they don't believe and say they did overspend, or just wait it out and hope the 'Last Labour government' excuse does not work as well for the Tories in 2020? (And make no mistake it will be used, as shown by Labour still using Thatcher's actions at times to try to convince voters in 2010 - but it is also true it won't be as effective)
    Not sure tbh. Another 5 years to 2020 is a long time in politics. Before polling day, I'd have rushed out print adverts just showing huge graphs showing the deficit (and maybe debt too) for the recent past showing it lower under Labour than the preceding and subsequent Conservative governments, and with a large arrow helpfully pointing out when the global crisis hit.
    fess up and move on, it your best chance or else hang around on the offchance of another Black Wednesday.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842

    For all the noise about Caroline Lucas regaining her seat with more votes, in Brighton & Hove council the Greens have been swept aside...

    The Labour Party is the largest on Brighton and Hove City Council, winning 23 of the 54 seats in the local elections.

    The Conservatives are the next largest party, with 20 seats, and the Greens have 11.


    Brighton & Hove news

    Sounds like the smoke signals that people were unhappy with the Green council were true. Clearly the good people of Brighton want a lefty voice in parliament for issues like trans-gender marriage, but none of that far left nonsense when it comes to bin collections !
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    I read Sadiq khan is soon to announce he is running for London mayor,

    Looks like things for labour will have to get worse before they get better.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274

    Naz Shah does seem very impressive and I understand she took a lot of personal abuse in taking down Galloway. If she stood in my constituency I would be happy to vote Labour.

    Compare and contrast....

    Naz Shah: Bradford West's Labour candidate pens emotional open letter explaining why she wants to be an MP

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/naz-shah-bradford-wests-labour-candidate-pens-emotional-open-letter-explaining-why-she-wants-to-be-an-mp-10096426.html


    George Galloway blames 'racists and Zionists' for defeat to Naz Shah in Bradford West

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/george-galloway-blames-racists-and-zionists-for-defeat-to-naz-shah-in-bradford-west-10234791.html
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,697
    edited May 2015

    MP_SE said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB The Tories did clearly lose votes to UKIP, they just replaced some with switchers from the Liberals, once an EU referendum has occurred, especially if a narrow IN with Cameron leading the IN campaign, UKIP will again be a headache for the Tories

    I don't think so. A large part of driver of the traditional Tory eurosceptic constituency is the feeling of, "No-one asked us about this. We weren't told the truth in 1975. This isn't what the people want." A referendum resulting in an IN vote would completely lance that boil and you would see the mainstream right pragmatically accepting the outcome.
    It would depend on what happened after an IN vote. If the EU does not reform, their share of global GDP declines further, UK trade to the rest of the world increases, immigration running at 300k per year, etc., you can be sure euroscepticism will not disappear.

    I could see the case for leaving becoming even greater. The concessions gained from the EU having not worked would make an argument for leaving even stronger.
    Why would anyone vote for IN ?

    We all know the EU will gives us a second chance to get the right answer. We should all vote OUT to maximise Cameron's negotiating hand.

    It's our patriotic duty.
    Quite a lot. Apart from the merits or otherwise of the EU:

    1) Exit would provoke a Scottish Indyref mark 2; possibly also annoying Wales and NI. This would end the UK.
    Given Nicola Sturgeon's quire reasonable position on wanting a double-majority to be the referendum test the campaign is destined to be subject to the same dynamics as we've just seen. The English will be told to vote IN to save the UK.
    What makes you think that the English want to save the UK by that point?
    Indeed.... This could effectively turn into England's chance to get rid of Scotland. If we can take one thing from the general election it is that much of England and Wales really, really, really have had enough of Scotlands whining and blackmail...
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 5,831
    Anyone else seen Tom Watson's crowdfunding page for his campaign for Deputy?

    He is claiming to want to make the country kinder and fairer. Has there ever been a less kind or fair Labour bruiser than Watson??
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    It seems notable that the crucial moment for some is that Labour refused to admit they spent too much, but there are plenty of voices on the left saying the problem is the opposite - that they did not defend enough that they did not overspend.

    Labour did not overspend by historical or international comparisons. Until the global financial crisis hit, Labour was running a lower deficit than the preceding Conservative government, and a lower deficit than the present Conservative government.

    The problem, as Lord Prescott observes, and as has been noted on pb in the past, is that Labour's choosing to say nothing at all about the economy for the past five years has meant that the Conservatives' narrative became established.
    So it's established.

    And the more labour stick their head in the sand and don't recognise what the voters see the longer they'll have to wait for a comeback.
    Whether or not Labour overspent, the point that Labour did not make any sort of economic case for the past five years means that voters perceive it to be true.
    What's the solution then? Say something they don't believe and say they did overspend, or just wait it out and hope the 'Last Labour government' excuse does not work as well for the Tories in 2020? (And make no mistake it will be used, as shown by Labour still using Thatcher's actions at times to try to convince voters in 2010 - but it is also true it won't be as effective)
    Not sure tbh. Another 5 years to 2020 is a long time in politics. Before polling day, I'd have rushed out print adverts just showing huge graphs showing the deficit (and maybe debt too) for the recent past showing it lower under Labour than the preceding and subsequent Conservative governments, and with a large arrow helpfully pointing out when the global crisis hit.
    Really? Graphs and pointers? That'll win people over? Are you Eoin Clarke?
    In the few days available, what else was there?
  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 4,460

    MP_SE said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB The Tories did clearly lose votes to UKIP, they just replaced some with switchers from the Liberals, once an EU referendum has occurred, especially if a narrow IN with Cameron leading the IN campaign, UKIP will again be a headache for the Tories

    I don't think so. A large part of driver of the traditional Tory eurosceptic constituency is the feeling of, "No-one asked us about this. We weren't told the truth in 1975. This isn't what the people want." A referendum resulting in an IN vote would completely lance that boil and you would see the mainstream right pragmatically accepting the outcome.
    It would depend on what happened after an IN vote. If the EU does not reform, their share of global GDP declines further, UK trade to the rest of the world increases, immigration running at 300k per year, etc., you can be sure euroscepticism will not disappear.

    I could see the case for leaving becoming even greater. The concessions gained from the EU having not worked would make an argument for leaving even stronger.
    Why would anyone vote for IN ?

    We all know the EU will gives us a second chance to get the right answer. We should all vote OUT to maximise Cameron's negotiating hand.

    It's our patriotic duty.
    Quite a lot. Apart from the merits or otherwise of the EU:

    1) Exit would provoke a Scottish Indyref mark 2; possibly also annoying Wales and NI. This would end the UK.
    Given Nicola Sturgeon's quire reasonable position on wanting a double-majority to be the referendum test the campaign is destined to be subject to the same dynamics as we've just seen. The English will be told to vote IN to save the UK.
    Meaning by voting for out, the English could possibly get rid of the "troublesome Scots"? I'd imagine that'd put quite a few more crosses in the out column.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559

    kle4 said:

    kle4 said:

    It seems notable that the crucial moment for some is that Labour refused to admit they spent too much, but there are plenty of voices on the left saying the problem is the opposite - that they did not defend enough that they did not overspend.

    Labour did not overspend by historical or international comparisons. Until the global financial crisis hit, Labour was running a lower deficit than the preceding Conservative government, and a lower deficit than the present Conservative government.

    The problem, as Lord Prescott observes, and as has been noted on pb in the past, is that Labour's choosing to say nothing at all about the economy for the past five years has meant that the Conservatives' narrative became established.
    So it's established.

    And the more labour stick their head in the sand and don't recognise what the voters see the longer they'll have to wait for a comeback.
    Whether or not Labour overspent, the point that Labour did not make any sort of economic case for the past five years means that voters perceive it to be true.
    What's the solution then? Say something they don't believe and say they did overspend, or just wait it out and hope the 'Last Labour government' excuse does not work as well for the Tories in 2020? (And make no mistake it will be used, as shown by Labour still using Thatcher's actions at times to try to convince voters in 2010 - but it is also true it won't be as effective)
    Not sure tbh. Another 5 years to 2020 is a long time in politics. Before polling day, I'd have rushed out print adverts just showing huge graphs showing the deficit (and maybe debt too) for the recent past showing it lower under Labour than the preceding and subsequent Conservative governments, and with a large arrow helpfully pointing out when the global crisis hit.
    Really? Graphs and pointers? That'll win people over? Are you Eoin Clarke?
    In the few days available, what else was there?
    Nothing. You needed to come clean back in 2010.
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 5,831

    Naz Shah does seem very impressive and I understand she took a lot of personal abuse in taking down Galloway. If she stood in my constituency I would be happy to vote Labour.

    I am not sure a strong back story is enough to warrant voting for anyone. I am far more concerned about where their thinking is now - not what got them there. Miliband's instincts and thinking were far more a decisive factor than anything else for many.
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 7,503
    edited May 2015

    MP_SE said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB The Tories did clearly lose votes to UKIP, they just replaced some with switchers from the Liberals, once an EU referendum has occurred, especially if a narrow IN with Cameron leading the IN campaign, UKIP will again be a headache for the Tories

    I don't think so. A large part of driver of the traditional Tory eurosceptic constituency is the feeling of, "No-one asked us about this. We weren't told the truth in 1975. This isn't what the people want." A referendum resulting in an IN vote would completely lance that boil and you would see the mainstream right pragmatically accepting the outcome.
    It would depend on what happened after an IN vote. If the EU does not reform, their share of global GDP declines further, UK trade to the rest of the world increases, immigration running at 300k per year, etc., you can be sure euroscepticism will not disappear.

    I could see the case for leaving becoming even greater. The concessions gained from the EU having not worked would make an argument for leaving even stronger.
    Why would anyone vote for IN ?

    We all know the EU will gives us a second chance to get the right answer. We should all vote OUT to maximise Cameron's negotiating hand.

    It's our patriotic duty.
    Quite a lot. Apart from the merits or otherwise of the EU:

    1) Exit would provoke a Scottish Indyref mark 2; possibly also annoying Wales and NI. This would end the UK.
    Given Nicola Sturgeon's quire reasonable position on wanting a double-majority to be the referendum test the campaign is destined to be subject to the same dynamics as we've just seen. The English will be told to vote IN to save the UK.
    What makes you think that the English want to save the UK by that point?
    Good afternoon all. This is the key point for me. The Indy referendum was very close, and as Dair points out, the demographic trends in Scotland favour the 'Yes' camp.

    Given the SNP landslide, it's clear that the Scottish people want to become a nation in their own right. As an Englishman, why would I want to stop that? I think it would be far more constructive to set out a sensible, phased approach to allow that to become a reality, rather than agonise over 'losing the Union', which quite frankly, means absolutely nothing to me.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789

    MP_SE said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB The Tories did clearly lose votes to UKIP, they just replaced some with switchers from the Liberals, once an EU referendum has occurred, especially if a narrow IN with Cameron leading the IN campaign, UKIP will again be a headache for the Tories

    I don't think so. A large part of driver of the traditional Tory eurosceptic constituency is the feeling of, "No-one asked us about this. We weren't told the truth in 1975. This isn't what the people want." A referendum resulting in an IN vote would completely lance that boil and you would see the mainstream right pragmatically accepting the outcome.
    It would depend on what happened after an IN vote. If the EU does not reform, their share of global GDP declines further, UK trade to the rest of the world increases, immigration running at 300k per year, etc., you can be sure euroscepticism will not disappear.

    I could see the case for leaving becoming even greater. The concessions gained from the EU having not worked would make an argument for leaving even stronger.
    Why would anyone vote for IN ?

    We all know the EU will gives us a second chance to get the right answer. We should all vote OUT to maximise Cameron's negotiating hand.

    It's our patriotic duty.
    Quite a lot. Apart from the merits or otherwise of the EU:

    1) Exit would provoke a Scottish Indyref mark 2; possibly also annoying Wales and NI. This would end the UK.
    Given Nicola Sturgeon's quire reasonable position on wanting a double-majority to be the referendum test the campaign is destined to be subject to the same dynamics as we've just seen. The English will be told to vote IN to save the UK.
    What makes you think that the English want to save the UK by that point?
    It's one thing to vote for the UK to go it alone, but quite another to vote for England and Wales to go it alone (with a unified Ireland another likely outcome).

  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    Anecdote Alert - I caught three taxis in Eastbourne on 7th May - all cars driven by first generation immigrants - they all said they had or would be voting Tory.

    kle4 said:

    It seems notable that the crucial moment for some is that Labour refused to admit they spent too much, but there are plenty of voices on the left saying the problem is the opposite - that they did not defend enough that they did not overspend.

    Labour did not overspend by historical or international comparisons. Until the global financial crisis hit, Labour was running a lower deficit than the preceding Conservative government, and a lower deficit than the present Conservative government.

    The problem, as Lord Prescott observes, and as has been noted on pb in the past, is that Labour's choosing to say nothing at all about the economy for the past five years has meant that the Conservatives' narrative became established.
    If you watch the Crosby video one very perceptive comment he makes is that people don't vote on policies but they do vote on what policies say about what the candidate stands for. For Labour to have been saying they didn't overspend was lethal regardless of the narrative or the merits of the economic argument.
    The long Crosby video is an absolute must watch for anybody interested in politics. You don't have to like the Tories or him, but he says a lot of very perceptive things that have come to pass 2 years on.

    All the talk down thread about various immigrant groups and how they vote. He tells a story of how in the past he managed to organize a win in an area dominated by first generation immigrants.

    I would be interested to see if the Tories tried the same kind of targeted approach in this GE and if they worked at all...hence why I was interested in the Exit Poll demographic data (which we wont get).
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    If the English vote Out they will effectively be voting to get rid of Scotland anyway so the Union would be broken by the English in the end, not the Scots. Wales had a strong UKIP vote in 2014 and is less pro EU than Scotland. Personally I think it will be a narrow In, driven by pro EU margins in Scotland and London, but it will be tight
  • FlightpathlFlightpathl Posts: 1,243

    After the disbelief and ranting at the Tories on Friday / Saturday, my twitter feed is now full with Labour supporters desperately again trying to convince anybody who will listen (on twitter) that Labour definitely didn't spend too much when they were in power.

    Maybe they should listen to Frank Field.

    Their problem is that if they accept the hard fact that they overspent, then what's the point of their party since they'll have no more largesse to spend on pet projects.

    There is no more monery.
    Exactly. It's like the Tories admitting to being 'the nasty party'.

    The tories did not admit to being nasty. They recognised that that was what they were being called.

    Labour are in trouble because the likes of Prescott say they did not overspend. The Blairites know they did.
    Robert Harris in the Sunday Times is scathing about Miliband.
    He points out he was not 'weak' but tough self confident... and deluded.
    plus,
    ''although not a Marxist, has a Marxist’s habit of thought: a tendency to develop a universal theory and then to adjust objective reality to fit it, rather than the other way round. Miliband’s theory, unwaveringly held, was that the globalised economy after the 2008 crash had produced vastly increased inequality; that this inequality is unsustainable''. Miliband was deluded into thinking there was a mood of public anger.
    Take zero hours contracts - ''People on zero-hours contracts, according to the Office for National Statistics, represent only 2.3% of the workforce, almost two-thirds of whom describe themselves as happy with their employment'' - higher than those in normal employment.

    He points out that Kinnock can only continue ''to blame the people for succumbing to what Marxists call “false consciousness”.

    Delusion - thats what lies at the heart of Labour's problems. I only mention it as a caution to Toryphiles.

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    taffys said:

    I read Sadiq khan is soon to announce he is running for London mayor,

    Looks like things for labour will have to get worse before they get better.

    Betting post

    11-4 Conservatives. London Mayor. There are enough places like Twickers and Battersea to make this a value punt.
  • PlatoPlato Posts: 15,724
    edited May 2015
    How did he pronounce it Worrcesster?

    Jeez, he'll be calling it Looez and Creywey as well I presume :wink:

    kle4 said:

    It seems notable that the crucial moment for some is that Labour refused to admit they spent too much, but there are plenty of voices on the left saying the problem is the opposite - that they did not defend enough that they did not overspend.

    On Chukka, I wonder if he just naturally appears a bit sneery to me, like an equivalent to what is termed 'resting b****face'. He should work on that. Unless it's an accurate reflection of his opinions, which would be a deeper problem.

    I still remember the fact he couldn't pronounce Worcester correctly. I wonder if that's really someone who's going to go down well outside of London.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559

    MP_SE said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB The Tories did clearly lose votes to UKIP, they just replaced some with switchers from the Liberals, once an EU referendum has occurred, especially if a narrow IN with Cameron leading the IN campaign, UKIP will again be a headache for the Tories

    I don't think so. A large part of driver of the traditional Tory eurosceptic constituency is the feeling of, "No-one asked us about this. We weren't told the truth in 1975. This isn't what the people want." A referendum resulting in an IN vote would completely lance that boil and you would see the mainstream right pragmatically accepting the outcome.
    It would depend on what happened after an IN vote. If the EU does not reform, their share of global GDP declines further, UK trade to the rest of the world increases, immigration running at 300k per year, etc., you can be sure euroscepticism will not disappear.

    I could see the case for leaving becoming even greater. The concessions gained from the EU having not worked would make an argument for leaving even stronger.
    Why would anyone vote for IN ?

    We all know the EU will gives us a second chance to get the right answer. We should all vote OUT to maximise Cameron's negotiating hand.

    It's our patriotic duty.
    Quite a lot. Apart from the merits or otherwise of the EU:

    1) Exit would provoke a Scottish Indyref mark 2; possibly also annoying Wales and NI. This would end the UK.
    Given Nicola Sturgeon's quire reasonable position on wanting a double-majority to be the referendum test the campaign is destined to be subject to the same dynamics as we've just seen. The English will be told to vote IN to save the UK.
    What makes you think that the English want to save the UK by that point?
    It's one thing to vote for the UK to go it alone, but quite another to vote for England and Wales to go it alone (with a unified Ireland another likely outcome).

    It's called democracy, the people vote. .
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    MPSE In practice though, Romney won the highest percentage of the white vote since 1988 in 2012, he still lost thanks to Obama's margin with ethnic minority voters, it is a good dream and the US is far better than under segregation, but tensions are still there
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789

    MP_SE said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB The Tories did clearly lose votes to UKIP, they just replaced some with switchers from the Liberals, once an EU referendum has occurred, especially if a narrow IN with Cameron leading the IN campaign, UKIP will again be a headache for the Tories

    I don't think so. A large part of driver of the traditional Tory eurosceptic constituency is the feeling of, "No-one asked us about this. We weren't told the truth in 1975. This isn't what the people want." A referendum resulting in an IN vote would completely lance that boil and you would see the mainstream right pragmatically accepting the outcome.
    It would depend on what happened after an IN vote. If the EU does not reform, their share of global GDP declines further, UK trade to the rest of the world increases, immigration running at 300k per year, etc., you can be sure euroscepticism will not disappear.

    I could see the case for leaving becoming even greater. The concessions gained from the EU having not worked would make an argument for leaving even stronger.
    Why would anyone vote for IN ?

    We all know the EU will gives us a second chance to get the right answer. We should all vote OUT to maximise Cameron's negotiating hand.

    It's our patriotic duty.
    Quite a lot. Apart from the merits or otherwise of the EU:

    1) Exit would provoke a Scottish Indyref mark 2; possibly also annoying Wales and NI. This would end the UK.
    Given Nicola Sturgeon's quire reasonable position on wanting a double-majority to be the referendum test the campaign is destined to be subject to the same dynamics as we've just seen. The English will be told to vote IN to save the UK.
    What makes you think that the English want to save the UK by that point?
    It's one thing to vote for the UK to go it alone, but quite another to vote for England and Wales to go it alone (with a unified Ireland another likely outcome).

    It's called democracy, the people vote. .
    I'm not questioning the legitimacy of democracy; I'm questioning the likelihood that they will vote a particular way.
  • DecrepitJohnLDecrepitJohnL Posts: 13,300

    Anyone else seen Tom Watson's crowdfunding page for his campaign for Deputy?

    He is claiming to want to make the country kinder and fairer. Has there ever been a less kind or fair Labour bruiser than Watson??

    Shades of George HW Bush's "kinder, gentler America".
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    edited May 2015
    kle4 said:

    Watching Kendall, she talks about Labour not setting out a positive enough alternative, and people liking someone talking about the positive things they are going to do - is that an implicit U-turn that the Tories did have a positive message in addition to their negative attacks?

    Liz Kendall had a very canny (and quite typically confident) performance in the Neill interview. She is one ambitious and articulate young woman.

    She did state that she thought that positivity and aspiration was the what was missing in Labours campaign, but was careful to speak up for trade unions and their role in society.

    I am glad that I topped up last night; odds are shortening on her by the hour.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 5,414
    Plato said:

    How did he pronounce it Worrcesster?

    Jeez, he'll be calling it Looez and Creywey as well I presume :wink:

    kle4 said:

    It seems notable that the crucial moment for some is that Labour refused to admit they spent too much, but there are plenty of voices on the left saying the problem is the opposite - that they did not defend enough that they did not overspend.

    On Chukka, I wonder if he just naturally appears a bit sneery to me, like an equivalent to what is termed 'resting b****face'. He should work on that. Unless it's an accurate reflection of his opinions, which would be a deeper problem.

    I still remember the fact he couldn't pronounce Worcester correctly. I wonder if that's really someone who's going to go down well outside of London.
    Worse. 'Wichita'.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28150247
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Good afternoon, everyone.

    Bit of a frustrating race.

    If Sturgeon wants us to only leave the EU if the whole UK and every one of the four constituent parts vote that way, she should be told to piss off. It's one country. We know that, because the Scots said so last year.
  • felixfelix Posts: 15,124
    taffys said:

    I read Sadiq khan is soon to announce he is running for London mayor,

    Looks like things for labour will have to get worse before they get better.

    I believe there was another swing against him in Tooting. no guarantee that a by-election there would be won by Labour.
  • SlackbladderSlackbladder Posts: 9,704
    John_M said:

    MP_SE said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB The Tories did clearly lose votes to UKIP, they just replaced some with switchers from the Liberals, once an EU referendum has occurred, especially if a narrow IN with Cameron leading the IN campaign, UKIP will again be a headache for the Tories

    I don't think so. A large part of driver of the traditional Tory eurosceptic constituency is the feeling of, "No-one asked us about this. We weren't told the truth in 1975. This isn't what the people want." A referendum resulting in an IN vote would completely lance that boil and you would see the mainstream right pragmatically accepting the outcome.
    It would depend on what happened after an IN vote. If the EU does not reform, their share of global GDP declines further, UK trade to the rest of the world increases, immigration running at 300k per year, etc., you can be sure euroscepticism will not disappear.

    I could see the case for leaving becoming even greater. The concessions gained from the EU having not worked would make an argument for leaving even stronger.
    Why would anyone vote for IN ?

    We all know the EU will gives us a second chance to get the right answer. We should all vote OUT to maximise Cameron's negotiating hand.

    It's our patriotic duty.
    Quite a lot. Apart from the merits or otherwise of the EU:

    1) Exit would provoke a Scottish Indyref mark 2; possibly also annoying Wales and NI. This would end the UK.
    Given Nicola Sturgeon's quire reasonable position on wanting a double-majority to be the referendum test the campaign is destined to be subject to the same dynamics as we've just seen. The English will be told to vote IN to save the UK.
    What makes you think that the English want to save the UK by that point?
    Good afternoon all. This is the key point for me. The Indy referendum was very close, and as Dair points out, the demographic trends in Scotland favour the 'Yes' camp.

    Given the SNP landslide, it's clear that the Scottish people want to become a nation in their own right. As an Englishman, why would I want to stop that? I think it would be far more constructive to set out a sensible, phased approach to allow that to become a reality, rather than agonise over 'losing the Union', which quite frankly, means absolutely nothing to me.
    I beleive in the union, but only if its equal and wanted and works for everyone.

    It's like being stuck in a marriage when the other half doesn't love you anymore. If you could make it work you would, but there comes a point where you just don't care anymore
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 76,274
    edited May 2015

    After the disbelief and ranting at the Tories on Friday / Saturday, my twitter feed is now full with Labour supporters desperately again trying to convince anybody who will listen (on twitter) that Labour definitely didn't spend too much when they were in power.

    Maybe they should listen to Frank Field.

    Their problem is that if they accept the hard fact that they overspent, then what's the point of their party since they'll have no more largesse to spend on pet projects.

    There is no more monery.
    Exactly. It's like the Tories admitting to being 'the nasty party'.

    The tories did not admit to being nasty. They recognised that that was what they were being called.

    Labour are in trouble because the likes of Prescott say they did not overspend. The Blairites know they did.
    Robert Harris in the Sunday Times is scathing about Miliband.
    He points out he was not 'weak' but tough self confident... and deluded.
    plus,
    ''although not a Marxist, has a Marxist’s habit of thought: a tendency to develop a universal theory and then to adjust objective reality to fit it, rather than the other way round. Miliband’s theory, unwaveringly held, was that the globalised economy after the 2008 crash had produced vastly increased inequality; that this inequality is unsustainable''. Miliband was deluded into thinking there was a mood of public anger.
    Take zero hours contracts - ''People on zero-hours contracts, according to the Office for National Statistics, represent only 2.3% of the workforce, almost two-thirds of whom describe themselves as happy with their employment'' - higher than those in normal employment.

    He points out that Kinnock can only continue ''to blame the people for succumbing to what Marxists call “false consciousness”.

    Delusion - thats what lies at the heart of Labour's problems. I only mention it as a caution to Toryphiles.

    There is another problem with spending so much time and effort banging on about ZHC...most of the people who he needs to win around in the likes of North Warwickshire, Nantwich, etc aren't on ZHC. It is not something that directly affects them.

    Energy prices was a better move, as everybody is affected by them, but is policy was stupid / counter productive and also prices started to fall.

    What do we remember most from Blair's campaign, Education, Education, Education...what does most of middle England have or aspire to have, kids, and most can't really afford private fees.
  • taffystaffys Posts: 9,753
    Mr Pulpstar I'm not sure even labour are stupid enough to select khan as their candidate. But if they are I would be on the Tories all day long.
  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584

    ...

    If Sturgeon wants us to only leave the EU if the whole UK and every one of the four constituent parts vote that way, she should be told to piss off. It's one country. We know that, because the Scots said so last year.

    True. Do we also only leave if there is a majority in each of the regions, SE, SW, etc of England?

    Or perhaps there needs to be a majority in each county?

    No, that's silly. Let's make it every town...
  • EPGEPG Posts: 5,996
    FPT SLDs did really well in getting tactical unionists in Edinburgh West and the Milngavie constituency (E Dunbartonshire? Fortunately not well enough for Swinson to cost me my SNP money there). Gordon and Argyll was less bad than expected. Dunfermline and Edinburgh East were predictable disasters. But the cruellest rebuke of all was the terrible performance of Charles Kennedy.
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 23,559

    MP_SE said:

    HYUFD said:

    MaxPB The Tories did clearly lose votes to UKIP, they just replaced some with switchers from the Liberals, once an EU referendum has occurred, especially if a narrow IN with Cameron leading the IN campaign, UKIP will again be a headache for the Tories

    I don't think so. A large part of driver of the traditional Tory eurosceptic constituency is the fr.

    I could see the case for leaving becoming even greater. The concessions gained from the EU having not worked would make an argument for leaving even stronger.
    Why would anyone vote for IN ?

    We all know the EU will gives us a second chance to get the right answer. We should all vote OUT to maximise Cameron's negotiating hand.

    It's our patriotic duty.
    Quite a lot. Apart from the merits or otherwise of the EU:

    1) Exit would provoke a Scottish Indyref mark 2; possibly also annoying Wales and NI. This would end the UK.
    Given Nicola Sturgeon's quire reasonable position on wanting a double-majority to be the referendum test the campaign is destined to be subject to the same dynamics as we've just seen. The English will be told to vote IN to save the UK.
    What makes you think that the English want to save the UK by that point?
    It's one thing to vote for the UK to go it alone, but quite another to vote for England and Wales to go it alone (with a unified Ireland another likely outcome).

    It's called democracy, the people vote. .
    I'm not questioning the legitimacy of democracy; I'm questioning the likelihood that they will vote a particular way.
    They'll vote how they wish, this has been the legitimacy problem the EU has, it is imposed over people's heads so has no credibility.

    As it happens I think they'll vote in as BOO hasn't done enough groundwork and UKIP has too many negative associations since it bhecame a politcal party.

    But if you're heading in to a negotiation you should vote out to give yourself the maximum leverage. The EU is always cliff edge politics nobody moves unless they think they have to.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. T, I'd dropped his classes by that time, but during the Danish cartoon insanity a lecturer (that had been mine the previous year) apparently spoke out in support of the maniacs marching through London.

    Some academics are bloody morons.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    edited May 2015
    taffys said:

    Mr Pulpstar I'm not sure even labour are stupid enough to select khan as their candidate. But if they are I would be on the Tories all day long.

    They won't be 11-4 if Khan is selected. If it's Coe vs Khan it might very well be 4-11 the Tories !

    I hope Labour do select Khan, I pretty much know I've won at that point.

    Jowell is the other candidate I've covered. I think she wins vs any Conservative except Coe.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Hopkins, it's a demented idea dreamt up by those with a vested interest in fostering division and resentment.
This discussion has been closed.