politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Labour leadership election gets exciting as the Unions

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Labour leadership election gets exciting as the Unions try and install Andy Burnham as leader

The other interesting snippet from the Sunday Times piece, is that Burnham currently has 50 MPs backing him and is approaching 100 MPs as backers, which would mean not all the declared candidates will make it to the ballot paper, as they need 35 MPs backing them to stand, which might be bad news for Tristram Hunt and Mary Creagh, but in terms of actual votes in the Labour electoral college, gives…

Read the full story here

RobD

First. And please let it be Burnham!

DecrepitJohnL

So no Chuka scandal in the papers and he wants a top job, or two, which implies he is confident none will emerge. Maybe the real problem was indeed that he was having trouble finding 35 to 50 MPs to back him.

Ghedebrav

DecrepitJohnL said:

So no Chuka scandal in the papers and he wants a top job, or two, which implies he is confident none will emerge. Maybe the real problem was indeed that he was having trouble finding 35 to 50 MPs to back him.

This is based on precisely nothing, but my view is that he saw all the brouhaha, had a think about how the machine would swing behind Burnham/Cooper anyway and concluded that he's plenty of chance in future to contest the leadership as a frontrunner with another parliament or two of experience.

Bit of a flip flop but it'll soon be forgotten. Most of the speculation is salacious nonsense which reflects poorly on those promoting it.

ydoethur

What does it say about the poor performance of Labour's senior figures over the last five years that the early front runner in this leadership in this election is the man who came last by a country mile of the serious contenders in the last leadership election with a grand total of 8% of the vote (just 10% on second preferences)?

Effectively, what Labour are saying seems to be: 'We did badly in 2010, so we elected a new leader. Under him, one of our most senior figures quit politics, another lost his seat, and we went from a coalition to a Conservative majority government so the leader had to resign and quit politics himself. This disaster was down to the leadership. So, to put this right, we plan to elect a man who came fourth behind all these others. This is because all our other front benchers are either preternaturally useless or completely inexperienced (or in Tristram Hunt's case, both) and have made no positive impact in those five years.'

Labour's problems go way beyond the leadership, but the one sure way to go even further backwards in 2020 would be to elect Burnham as leader.

At the moment, I do not see any likely candidate who could seriously challenge any plausible successor of Cameron in the leadership stakes in 2020, and they have nobody who offers great hope of competence or indeed commanding public confidence as Shadow Chancellor. Stella Creasy would be the nearest, but I don't share the starry-eyed enthusiasm for her in some quarters - she strikes me as a well-meaning and fairly clever but lightweight politician who might turn out to be a bit of an Anthony Barber figure.

As a result, I am slowly coming to the conclusion that Labour could well be out of power for two decades rather than just one. And with vivid memories of the last years of Brown and Major to draw on, I cannot help but feel that's bad news for democracy, and possibly bad news for the United Kingdom.

SquareRoot

After last time....I cannot understand why Labour are allowing the Unions anywhere near the leadership.. but how many MP's are sponsored by unions... That's where the first break between MP and Union needs to be.

DecrepitJohnL

ydoethur said:

What does it say about the poor performance of Labour's senior figures over the last five years that the early front runner in this leadership in this election is the man who came last by a country mile of the serious contenders in the last leadership election with a grand total of 8% of the vote (just 10% on second preferences)?

Effectively, what Labour are saying seems to be: 'We did badly in 2010, so we elected a new leader. Under him, one of our most senior figures quit politics, another lost his seat, and we went from a coalition to a Conservative majority government so the leader had to resign and quit politics himself. This disaster was down to the leadership. So, to put this right, we plan to elect a man who came fourth behind all these others. This is because all our other front benchers are either preternaturally useless or completely inexperienced (or in Tristram Hunt's case, both) and have made no positive impact in those five years.'

Labour's problems go way beyond the leadership, but the one sure way to go even further backwards in 2020 would be to elect Burnham as leader.

At the moment, I do not see any likely candidate who could seriously challenge any plausible successor of Cameron in the leadership stakes in 2020, and they have nobody who offers great hope of competence or indeed commanding public confidence as Shadow Chancellor. Stella Creasy would be the nearest, but I don't share the starry-eyed enthusiasm for her in some quarters - she strikes me as a well-meaning and fairly clever but lightweight politician who might turn out to be a bit of an Anthony Barber figure.

As a result, I am slowly coming to the conclusion that Labour could well be out of power for two decades rather than just one. And with vivid memories of the last years of Brown and Major to draw on, I cannot help but feel that's bad news for democracy, and possibly bad news for the United Kingdom.

Yes, it is depressing. Stars emerge in opposition, but none has, owing perhaps to the Miliband strategy of saying nothing about anything for the past five years. Before we despair, though: what had David Cameron done at the same stage?

ThomasNashe

I don't really understand the mechanism that allows Unison to install their man. 1) They persuade as many members as they can to affiliate, presumably by contacting each member individually. 2) Instructions are then sent out about how to vote for their preferred candidate. But what if some of these affiliates have a mind of their own? It's conceivable that some of them might even vote for Kendall, despite Uncle Len's instructions?

RobD

DecrepitJohnL said:

Yes, it is depressing. Stars emerge in opposition, but none has, owing perhaps to the Miliband strategy of saying nothing about anything for the past five years. Before we despair, though: what had David Cameron done at the same stage?

I'll have you know he had already achieved level 50 on Candy Crush....

CarlottaVance

DecrepitJohnL said:

So no Chuka scandal in the papers and he wants a top job, or two, which implies he is confident none will emerge. Maybe the real problem was indeed that he was having trouble finding 35 to 50 MPs to back him.

If you had a Chuka scandal would you publish it if he was no longer standing....or save it for later?

Imagine the froth our friends on the left would have worked themselves into had a Tory leadership candidate been a member of Chuka's club?

CarlottaVance

Brown was appointed unopposed.
Miliband was the Unions' chosen one.
Burnham may be appointed unopposed as the Unions' chosen one.
What could possibly go wrong?

Charles

Ghedebrav said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

So no Chuka scandal in the papers and he wants a top job, or two, which implies he is confident none will emerge. Maybe the real problem was indeed that he was having trouble finding 35 to 50 MPs to back him.

This is based on precisely nothing, but my view is that he saw all the brouhaha, had a think about how the machine would swing behind Burnham/Cooper anyway and concluded that he's plenty of chance in future to contest the leadership as a frontrunner with another parliament or two of experience.

Bit of a flip flop but it'll soon be forgotten. Most of the speculation is salacious nonsense which reflects poorly on those promoting it.

I think that's right, and he's cleverly selected a position which will allow him to be senior, to get valuable "statesmanship" experience and avoid all the grubby nastiness of arguing for or against austerity over the next 5 years.

But it demonstrates breathtaking arrogance that he think a man without any track record of a senior position could qualify to serve as Foreign Secretary: while PM and Chancellor are much more explicitly political positions, this post should be reserved for people with a modicum of experience.

ydoethur

DecrepitJohnL said:

Yes, it is depressing. Stars emerge in opposition, but none has, owing perhaps to the Miliband strategy of saying nothing about anything for the past five years. Before we despair, though: what had David Cameron done at the same stage?

He had been mentioned as a potential leader, worked successfully for Michael Howard to get himself noticed and decided to throw his hat into the ring. He then wowed the party conference with a far better speech than David Davis and by not being as old as Rifkind or Clarke, and the rest is history. The nearest equivalent for Labour would be Dan Jarvis, who has ruled himself out this time around - probably sensibly at the time, although now Umunna has withdrawn he might reconsider I suppose.

It also seems unlikely - not impossible, but unlikely - that any complete outsider can get onto the ballot paper in the first place, because Labour are still in the 'denial' stage of defeat. They are thinking it was all about Ed Miliband personally, or the press, or the SNP, or the boundaries, and simply not facing the fact that they are profoundly and deeply unpopular throughout the UK. Even in their safest seats their majorities are no longer as safe as they were - for example in Aberavon for the first time in the age of universal suffrage they polled under 50% of the vote, almost certainly because they had a wealthy candidate who actually lives in Denmark foisted on them (I haven't forgotten he used to live in Aberavon). But because Labour are refusing to confront this, they may well make exactly the same mistakes again - and certainly none of the candidates, not even Kendall, have confronted reality in the way that is needed. I agree with Cruddas that until that happens, no suitable leader will emerge.

Cameron, remember, had the advantage of three crushing defeats to remind the Conservatives that people did not like them. Are Labour really going to be able to accept how badly hated they are on just two? Remember the trouble Neil Kinnock had in the 1980s and I would say probably not.

Labour, if it is to survive at all, needs to rebuild itself from the guts up - an end to centralised candidate selection, an end to the idea that everyone must conform to Central Office ideals and campaigns, and an end to the election of leaders who have more millions in the bank than brain cells. It's not an immediate cure - Janos Toth here in Cannock was local, and goodness knows he was a terrible candidate - but it's far more likely to be effective than just reshuffling the chairs in the shadow cabinet.

ydoethur

Charles said:

I think that's right, and he's cleverly selected a position which will allow him to be senior, to get valuable "statesmanship" experience and avoid all the grubby nastiness of arguing for or against austerity over the next 5 years.

But it demonstrates breathtaking arrogance that he think a man without any track record of a senior position could qualify to serve as Foreign Secretary: while PM and Chancellor are much more explicitly political positions, this post should be reserved for people with a modicum of experience.

Robin Cook? Not that I'm holding him up as a great success, mind you. I think you are right to an extent, but at the same time I'm not sure whether it would be political experience or outside experience (e.g. as an international businessman perhaps, who have to deal with a vast number of different countries pretty much every day) that would be more relevant. As you note, it is, or at least should be, the least political of all the senior posts in government.

MarqueeMark

ydoethur said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Yes, it is depressing. Stars emerge in opposition, but none has, owing perhaps to the Miliband strategy of saying nothing about anything for the past five years. Before we despair, though: what had David Cameron done at the same stage?

The nearest equivalent for Labour would be Dan Jarvis, who has ruled himself out this time around - probably sensibly at the time, although now Umunna has withdrawn he might reconsider I suppose.

Given the arguments Jarvis made - the adverse impact on his family - I can't see him revisiting that decision without looking just way too ambitious.

However, he will be a formidable opponent when he does run. Chuka may rue the day, as he finds his career path blocked by the former Para....

But this time around, the field looks woeful. Really, really dire.

DecrepitJohnL

CarlottaVance said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

So no Chuka scandal in the papers and he wants a top job, or two, which implies he is confident none will emerge. Maybe the real problem was indeed that he was having trouble finding 35 to 50 MPs to back him.

If you had a Chuka scandal would you publish it if he was no longer standing....or save it for later?

Imagine the froth our friends on the left would have worked themselves into had a Tory leadership candidate been a member of Chuka's club?

A real scandal would be published now, before the other papers got hold of it. The club with expensive brandy, if it had not appeared, is at best gossip column material that might have been passed to Private Eye. The idea that editors have safes full of scoops that would bring down Prime Ministers is fanciful.

foxinsoxuk

If Burnham really does have 100 MPs nominating him it does become an unassailable position, no matter what happens with the Unions.

He is the leader that they needed in 2010, but not now.

MarqueeMark

"Scouser Ed". That won't stick. No sirreeeee.....

Is there a man with worse political antennae in Britain than Len McCluskey? Almost makes you think he must be in the pay of CCHQ.

"Excellent work, Friend Len. You have been awarded the Thatcher Cross with Spirit of Free Enterprise Bar...."

Charles

ydoethur said:

Charles said:

I think that's right, and he's cleverly selected a position which will allow him to be senior, to get valuable "statesmanship" experience and avoid all the grubby nastiness of arguing for or against austerity over the next 5 years.

But it demonstrates breathtaking arrogance that he think a man without any track record of a senior position could qualify to serve as Foreign Secretary: while PM and Chancellor are much more explicitly political positions, this post should be reserved for people with a modicum of experience.

Robin Cook? Not that I'm holding him up as a great success, mind you. I think you are right to an extent, but at the same time I'm not sure whether it would be political experience or outside experience (e.g. as an international businessman perhaps, who have to deal with a vast number of different countries pretty much every day) that would be more relevant. As you note, it is, or at least should be, the least political of all the senior posts in government.

Sure Robin Cook hadn't been in Cabinet, but he had been a MP politician since 1974 and had been in the Shadow Cabinet for 7 years before he was appointed Shadow Foreign Secretary in 1997.

As for experience I'd say "life experience" (although not in the Daily Mail sense!) would be sufficient. May be it's my age, but I don't feel comfortable with a 36 year old who thinks he has what it takes to be Shadow Foreign Secretary...

Charles

MarqueeMark said:

ydoethur said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Yes, it is depressing. Stars emerge in opposition, but none has, owing perhaps to the Miliband strategy of saying nothing about anything for the past five years. Before we despair, though: what had David Cameron done at the same stage?

The nearest equivalent for Labour would be Dan Jarvis, who has ruled himself out this time around - probably sensibly at the time, although now Umunna has withdrawn he might reconsider I suppose.

Given the arguments Jarvis made - the adverse impact on his family - I can't see him revisiting that decision without looking just way too ambitious.

However, he will be a formidable opponent when he does run. Chuka may rue the day, as he finds his career path blocked by the former Para....

But this time around, the field looks woeful. Really, really dire.

To be fair it wasn't "adverse impact on his family" it was that his children needed him.

He's got a baby with his second wife (Wiki), but his older children are 10 and 12. In 2020 they will be 15 and 17 - and would be 20 and 22 before he had a shot at being PM - so I reckon that he could take a run at it in 2020 without too much of an issue.

Charles

DecrepitJohnL said:

CarlottaVance said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

So no Chuka scandal in the papers and he wants a top job, or two, which implies he is confident none will emerge. Maybe the real problem was indeed that he was having trouble finding 35 to 50 MPs to back him.

If you had a Chuka scandal would you publish it if he was no longer standing....or save it for later?

Imagine the froth our friends on the left would have worked themselves into had a Tory leadership candidate been a member of Chuka's club?

A real scandal would be published now, before the other papers got hold of it. The club with expensive brandy, if it had not appeared, is at best gossip column material that might have been passed to Private Eye. The idea that editors have safes full of scoops that would bring down Prime Ministers is fanciful.

There were hints about "nocturnal activities" but my guess it is was a smear story that didn't quite stack up. It might make sense to hold it back and see if you can put together real supporting evidence.

MarqueeMark

Charles said:

ydoethur said:

Charles said:

I think that's right, and he's cleverly selected a position which will allow him to be senior, to get valuable "statesmanship" experience and avoid all the grubby nastiness of arguing for or against austerity over the next 5 years.

But it demonstrates breathtaking arrogance that he think a man without any track record of a senior position could qualify to serve as Foreign Secretary: while PM and Chancellor are much more explicitly political positions, this post should be reserved for people with a modicum of experience.

Robin Cook? Not that I'm holding him up as a great success, mind you. I think you are right to an extent, but at the same time I'm not sure whether it would be political experience or outside experience (e.g. as an international businessman perhaps, who have to deal with a vast number of different countries pretty much every day) that would be more relevant. As you note, it is, or at least should be, the least political of all the senior posts in government.

Sure Robin Cook hadn't been in Cabinet, but he had been a MP politician since 1974 and had been in the Shadow Cabinet for 7 years before he was appointed Shadow Foreign Secretary in 1997.

As for experience I'd say "life experience" (although not in the Daily Mail sense!) would be sufficient. May be it's my age, but I don't feel comfortable with a 36 year old who thinks he has what it takes to be Shadow Foreign Secretary...

The people who would have to be persuaded to turn that from Shadow to Foreign Secretary are also going to be saying "maybe it's my age, but...." as they look with a certain suspicion at the lack of experience/surfeit of ambition.

richardDodd

Only in Politics could Burnham be considered a leader..in industry I doubt he would even get an interview for a senior position.

Pulpstar

Labour's best shot might be to just go with the deeply steady and uninspiring Cooper for 3 years before switching to Jarvis or Kendall in the last year or so.

SquareRoot

If this was a business it would be the Non exec directors and HR involved in the recruitment of a new chief executive.. The Unions would not be involved at all.

Their involvement in selection of leader of the Labour party is a disaster waiting to happen

Pulpstar

Have any MPs come out for Hunt, Creagh or Kendall yet btw ?

MarqueeMark

SquareRoot said:

If this was a business it would be the Non exec directors and HR involved in the recruitment of a new chief executive.. The Unions would not be involved at all.

Their involvement in selection of leader of the Labour party is a disaster waiting to happen

Actually, a disaster waiting to be repeated.

Charles

MarqueeMark said:

Charles said:

ydoethur said:

Charles said:

I think that's right, and he's cleverly selected a position which will allow him to be senior, to get valuable "statesmanship" experience and avoid all the grubby nastiness of arguing for or against austerity over the next 5 years.

But it demonstrates breathtaking arrogance that he think a man without any track record of a senior position could qualify to serve as Foreign Secretary: while PM and Chancellor are much more explicitly political positions, this post should be reserved for people with a modicum of experience.

Robin Cook? Not that I'm holding him up as a great success, mind you. I think you are right to an extent, but at the same time I'm not sure whether it would be political experience or outside experience (e.g. as an international businessman perhaps, who have to deal with a vast number of different countries pretty much every day) that would be more relevant. As you note, it is, or at least should be, the least political of all the senior posts in government.

Sure Robin Cook hadn't been in Cabinet, but he had been a MP politician since 1974 and had been in the Shadow Cabinet for 7 years before he was appointed Shadow Foreign Secretary in 1997.

As for experience I'd say "life experience" (although not in the Daily Mail sense!) would be sufficient. May be it's my age, but I don't feel comfortable with a 36 year old who thinks he has what it takes to be Shadow Foreign Secretary...

The people who would have to be persuaded to turn that from Shadow to Foreign Secretary are also going to be saying "maybe it's my age, but...." as they look with a certain suspicion at the lack of experience/surfeit of ambition.

My point was I'm only a couple of years old than Chuka, and I don't reckon I've the experience to be Foreign Secretary...

daodao

It doesn't really matter who the next Labour leader is unless he/she comes from and can appeal to Middle England, and the Labour party as a whole:

a) recognises that it is responsible for much of the UK's financial problems because of reckless spending in the years 2000-8;
b) develops policies that don't just pander to society's ne'er do wells;
c) breaks all links with the union dinosaurs; and
d) forgets about Scotland.

I now agree with Salmond that Scottish independence is likely in his lifetime (I am approximately the same age as him and have a life expectancy of about 10 years), so there is no point from a Westminster perspective of Labour trying to win back support there. In some ways the SNP is to 2015 what SF was to 1918, with Sturgeon the equivalent of de Valera.

IMO, Labour needs to select a WASP as leader. They have already tried and failed with someone who was alien to the English; the "London" Sun's anti-semitic caricature about bacon on the day or so before the election will have resonated with middle English swing voters. However non-PC this view might seem, a Scouse cat would be a similar gift to the Tories. Kendall is the best of a poor bunch and doesn't have baggage.

There is a role in England (& Wales for the foreseeable future) for a mildly left-of-centre social democratic party, but if they are not careful and considered in the direction/leader that they choose, Labour are likely to be out of power for a generation. They do have some advantages in the disappearance of some competitors. The LiDems have been destroyed in this GE and are now merely bits of flotsam from a shipwreck. UKIP are self-destructing and their raison d'etre will have disappeared once Cameron wins the EU referendum in 2016/7.

notme

Can i be first to role out the cliché, "a week is a very long time in politics"?

Back to the topic. Isnt the system that Labour are using to elect their leader a new system introduced by Miliband? Couldn't they even get that simple process right?

YBarddCwsc

YDoethur wrote
" It also seems unlikely - not impossible, but unlikely - that any complete outsider can get onto the ballot paper in the first place, because Labour are still in the 'denial' stage of defeat. They are thinking it was all about Ed Miliband personally, or the press, or the SNP, or the boundaries, and simply not facing the fact that they are profoundly and deeply unpopular throughout the UK. Even in their safest seats their majorities are no longer as safe as they were - for example in Aberavon for the first time in the age of universal suffrage they polled under 50% of the vote, almost certainly because they had a wealthy candidate who actually lives in Denmark foisted on them (I haven't forgotten he used to live in Aberavon). But because Labour are refusing to confront this, they may well make exactly the same mistakes again - and certainly none of the candidates, not even Kendall, have confronted reality in the way that is needed. I agree with Cruddas that until that happens, no suitable leader will emerge."

I don't think Stephen Kinnock ever lived in Aberavon. He was born in Tredegar, but has no connection with Aberavon.

My Danish (very right-wing) friend is delighted with his wife, Helle Thorning-Schmidt. She has lowered tax rates for high earners, partly privatised the energy companies. In a very high-profile fight with the Danish teaching unions, she LOCKED OUT all the teachers.

Yes, a lock-out, the kind of thing associated with nineteenth century coal mine owners and iron masters.

Helle certainly would not be in the UK Labour Party if a British politician. From her actions, she is more right wing than David Cameron.

But, nothing was sadder than the Labour party stitch-up in Aberavon. A rich man, with no connection to the constituency and with little time to spend in it, now represents some of the most deprived wards in South Wales.

TCPoliticalBetting

notme said:

Can i be first to role out the cliché, "a week is a very long time in politics"?

Back to the topic. Isnt the system that Labour are using to elect their leader a new system introduced by Miliband? Couldn't they even get that simple process right?

This is Ed Miliband (backed by the Unions) you are writing about.

TCPoliticalBetting

SquareRoot said:

After last time....I cannot understand why Labour are allowing the Unions anywhere near the leadership.. but how many MP's are sponsored by unions... That's where the first break between MP and Union needs to be.

It could have been worse.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2314950/Majority-Labours-MPs-2015-election-links-unions.html

Ghedebrav

Right - to the 'unnamed Labour MP' and anyone else: Burnham isn't Scouse. He's from Warrington. I know he was born in a Liverpool hospital, but "If a man be born in a stable" etc.

He doesn't even sound Scouse.

TCPoliticalBetting

147 Labour MPs linked to Unite.

The proportion of Labour MPs who have links to unions through membership or donations has risen from 84 per cent before the election to 97 per cent now.

The number of MPs with links to Unite, the super-union, has risen from around half to 65 per cent, according to an analysis by the Conservatives.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11609545/Growing-share-of-Labour-MPs-have-union-links.html

notme

Ghedebrav said:

Right - to the 'unnamed Labour MP' and anyone else: Burnham isn't Scouse. He's from Warrington. I know he was born in a Liverpool hospital, but "If a man be born in a stable" etc.

He doesn't even sound Scouse.

He wears his grievances like a true native though.

CD13

Ghedebrav,

"Burnham isn't Scouse."

Correct. Most Woolly Backs dislike being called Scouse. Those that don't tend to be derided as being 'Plastic Scousers.'

That's my opinion being an outsider and after living in a Liverpool post-code for over twenty years.

You may as well call him a "pie-eater" if you want a proper insult.

But he'd be a popular selection in the NW anyway.

richardDodd

The fact that Labour is completely owned and run by the Unions and controlled by Len McCluskey will hang around their neck for at least the next Parliament.They have to ditch this connection or face oblivion...just like the LD,s.
Even the most tribal Labour voter dislikes sneaky manipulation and being treated as an idiot.
The Conservatives will remorselessly use this fact and it will dominate all areas of discussion.

ydoethur

YBarddCwsc said:

I don't think Stephen Kinnock ever lived in Aberavon. He was born in Tredegar, but has no connection with Aberavon...nothing was sadder than the Labour party stitch-up in Aberavon. A rich man, with no connection to the constituency and with little time to spend in it, now represents some of the most deprived wards in South Wales.

My mistake, I thought he did. Thanks for putting me right. Wherever and whenever he lived, he clearly has no connection with the constituency now, and in my view that is completely wrong. Ed Balls may just have given a vivid demonstration of what happens to candidates parachuted into officially 'safe' seats to which they have no connection. Tristram Hunt is another. I'm no socialist, but if I had lived in Stoke-on-Trent Central in 2010 I would have voted for Gary Elsby on principle (he also has other qualities that would have made him great fun in the House of Commons including an impish sense of humour, but that's another story).

That thought inspired me to look through some of the other seats in South Wales, which of course are often stitched up in that fashion (cf Peter Hain). Has anyone noticed that only five of them now have 50% of the vote going to Labour? Two of those are Rhondda Cynon Taff and Blaenau Gwent, which have been taken by other parties not that long ago (admittedly RCT at Assembly level rather than Westminster). That would appear to leave Ogmore, Merthyr and Swansea West as the last bastions of the 'they don't count the Labour votes, they weigh them' Valleys.

I'm wondering if this is another heartland where, if the conditions were right, Labour could end up under huge pressure. On these figures, next year's Assembly elections might offer a few decent possibilities for some surprise gains. A lot would of course depend on Plaid Cymru - who would have to be the realistic challengers in most of these seats - but Carwyn Jones' regime looks to me to be on the way out, and something would have to replace it if it imploded.

Then the next question - if Labour is under pressure in the North, Scotland, Wales and the Midlands - where exactly would the seats to return to power or even to survive as a political force come from?

wumper

This is a non story because it is pure fabrication. All elections in the Labour party are one man one vote with no union influence whatsoever

richardDodd

Any policy put forward by Labour under Burnham will be seen,probably quite rightly, as a direct instruction from McClusky...and it will be treated as such.

john_zims

@notme

'He wears his grievances like a true native though.'

He certainly whines like a scouser.

Sandpit

Okay, so no big Chuka story. Media holding something back or couldn't back it up?

The alternative is that he either couldn't get the votes together or sees this as a good election to lost, so would prefer to position himself for the next one in 2018 or 2020.

notme

wumper said:

This is a non story because it is pure fabrication. All elections in the Labour party are one man one vote with no union influence whatsoever

Ed specifically won last time because he manipulated the rules to get a union endorsement with ballot papers that went out to union members.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Party_(UK)_leadership_election,_2010#Union_recommendation_controversy

It was this endorsement and cunning manipulation that pushed him over the numbers. It's fool hardy to claim otherwise.

MarqueeMark

CD13 said:

Ghedebrav,

"Burnham isn't Scouse."

....

But he'd be a popular selection in the NW anyway.

Because Labour really needs to top up its majorities in Liverpool and Manchester.....

ydoethur

Sandpit said:

Okay, so no big Chuka story. Media holding something back or couldn't back it up?

The alternative is that he either couldn't get the votes together or sees this as a good election to lost, so would prefer to position himself for the next one in 2018 or 2020.

Possibly the second. I doubt if it would be the first. If Diane Abbott could get enough votes...

Doesn't say much for his judgement though, does it? As the old Irish saying goes, never test the depth of a river with both feet. He now looks like a bit of an idiot - an inept campaign for a job he didn't want that only lasted a few days. Hardly bodes well for his chances next time around.

Sandpit

If Mr Stafford Hospital does have 100 MPs behind him, we'll be looking at a seriously reduced field - could it even end up with just him and Mrs Balls able to get the signatures together?
If that happens the Tories will be over the moon!

Plato

Shippers in the Times is saying "a week is a geological age in politics"

notme said:

Can i be first to role out the cliché, "a week is a very long time in politics"?

Back to the topic. Isnt the system that Labour are using to elect their leader a new system introduced by Miliband? Couldn't they even get that simple process right?

DecrepitJohnL

Sandpit said:

Okay, so no big Chuka story. Media holding something back or couldn't back it up?

The alternative is that he either couldn't get the votes together or sees this as a good election to lost, so would prefer to position himself for the next one in 2018 or 2020.

If so, it is not without risk as new challengers could emerge. Political serendipity, as it were: if Shaun Woodward had not defected, David Cameron would not have replaced him in the safe seat of Witney; if Martin Bell had not ousted Neil Hamilton, then George Osborne would not now be MP for Tatton. Who can tell what future ministers or even prime ministers lurk in the new Labour intake?

Of course, it is entirely possible Chuka and Dan Jarvis have looked at the personal abuse hurled at Ed Miliband and previously Gordon Brown, and decided it's not worth the candle.

ydoethur

MarqueeMark said:

CD13 said:

Ghedebrav,

"Burnham isn't Scouse."

....

But he'd be a popular selection in the NW anyway.

Because Labour really needs to top up its majorities in Liverpool and Manchester.....

That's the thing though, isn't it? Labour were thrilled that they did so well in London in the European elections. In vain did I point out to them that it doesn't matter how well they do in London because they already held all bar a couple of seats they could realistically win there. They had won London, they would win over Britain, that was how they saw it. Meanwhile, a cold-eyed look outside revealed that they were going backwards in the Midlands and the South of England, and struggling in the North and Scotland. It would even have predicted the result in Cannock Chase if you assumed that those who voted UKIP in Europe would vote for any party but Labour in the GE, not an unreasonable assumption given their stridently pro-EU anti-referendum stance.

In fact, the European elections were an excellent predictor of this year's result, unusually, if I had only had the sense to think about what they showed about Labour's deep unpopularity rather than being blindsided by UKIP's success and the opinion polls which superficially told a very different story.

HenryGManson

The article genuinely is full of distortions and isn't worth the paper it's written on and certainly no use as a betting guide. As I wrote yesterday union leaders genuinely haven't got a strong view yet and they even less will have limited influence now. http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2015/05/16/henry-g-manson-pbs-lab-insider-says-yvette-should-be-odds-on-favourite-for-the-party-leadership/

Unions cannot install a leader or hijack a process. Even last time let's not forget that David Miliband would have been leader if he'd have won the support of (or been less rude to) 4 more Labour MPs. But the arrangements now are completely different. All leadership candidates will have access to union members equally, the union ballot papers will be sent out independently of the unions so won't even give the temptation of branded envelopes like some had last time. Only those union members who pay their union's political levy and sign up to a statement of support for Labour will be able to take part. The reason why unions are only doing this now is because they thought Ed would be PM and they were putting all resources into the election effort.

As an aside if Burnham had wanted to woo McCluskey then the last person he'd put in charge of his campaign is Michael Dugher! A while back launched a public criticism of him which led to an equally response from the union's political officer Jennie Formby. This hasn't been forgotten.

https://www.politicshome.com/party-politics/articles/house/inside-man
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/oct/03/unite-official-ed-miliband-union-tactics

I don't buy that there are 100 MPs backing Burnham but if this is remotely correct then that is impressive. While MPs will only have the same vote as members, many activists will take note of who their own MP backs and it could help open up introductions to key local activists. It looks like Burnham will give Cooper a run for her money but it's not until we see the nominations next month that we'll really be able to make a hard-headed assessment.

john_zims

@richardDodd

'Any policy put forward by Labour under Burnham will be seen,probably quite rightly, as a direct instruction from McClusky...and it will be treated as such.'

Can't wait for the excuses in 2020 when Labour lose with McClusky's placeman as leader.

MarqueeMark

Sandpit said:

If Mr Stafford Hospital does have 100 MPs behind him, we'll be looking at a seriously reduced field - could it even end up with just him and Mrs Balls able to get the signatures together?
If that happens the Tories will be over the moon!

Makes the outcome interesting.

Len just asks Scouser Ed and the Peely-Wally Waif to decide heads or tails, as he takes out a coin.....

foxinsoxuk

Sandpit said:

If Mr Stafford Hospital does have 100 MPs behind him, we'll be looking at a seriously reduced field - could it even end up with just him and Mrs Balls able to get the signatures together?
If that happens the Tories will be over the moon!

My thoughts exactly. But also it is not good for a party if the leader is not backed by its own MPs (Ed springs to mind). If Liz can only just scrape together 35, is it a base big enough for authority in the house? We do not see many declaring for her yet.

ydoethur

So to finish that comment off - I think there is every chance Labour will mistake 'topping up its majorities in places like Manchester and Liverpool' with 'broadening its appeal to the rest of the country.' That is how insular they have become. It was Blair's genius to understand he had to reach beyond the core vote, although he never quite worked out what to do with the votes when he had them. Until or unless Labour understand they are not a religious movement aiming at ideological purity of an elect and the expulsion/ostracising of any heretics who question them, they are doomed to remain at best a minor force in politics.

notme

john_zims said:

@richardDodd

'Any policy put forward by Labour under Burnham will be seen,probably quite rightly, as a direct instruction from McClusky...and it will be treated as such.'

Can't wait for the excuses in 2020 when Labour lose with McClusky's placeman as leader.

"All this has happened before, and all of it will happen again."
(Battlestar Galactica)

HenryGManson

Incidentally MPs aren't sponsored by unions any more. That stopped about ten years ago. They have constituency development arrangements with local parties but they're agreed and voted on by the local General Management Committee members. I don't know if it's still the case but you used to have to be a member of a trade union to be a candidate for public office for Labour. All Labour MPs should be trade union members.

Morris_Dancer

Good morning, everyone.

If Labour voters [in the leadership election sense of the word] do not believe they need substantial change, Burnham's still in good shape.

ydoethur

HenryGManson said:

Incidentally MPs aren't sponsored by unions any more. That stopped about ten years ago. They have constituency development arrangements with local parties but they're agreed and voted on by the local General Management Committee members. I don't know if it's still the case but you used to have to be a member of a trade union to be a candidate for public office for Labour. All Labour MPs should be trade union members.

In that case the first act of the leader should be to abandon that requirement. It may have made sense 40 years ago when most blue-collar workers were unionised. However, now the unions are increasingly dominated by white-collar professions, including my own, you run the real risk of skewing your parliamentary party into something totally unlike the electorate you are trying to appeal to. Better to ditch the requirement and invite factory workers to come forward again.

One point (sorry, yet another one about Hunt) - I know he's not a member of the UCU (if he had been, he would have been expelled for strike breaking, but I'm fairly sure he had resigned before that). It therefore seems unlikely he is a member of any union. Does that mean the link is broken anyway?

Also, which union would the Miliband brothers have belonged to, bearing in mind they were both in effect career parliamentary aides? Which union covers that?

DecrepitJohnL

ydoethur said:

So to finish that comment off - I think there is every chance Labour will mistake 'topping up its majorities in places like Manchester and Liverpool' with 'broadening its appeal to the rest of the country.' That is how insular they have become. It was Blair's genius to understand he had to reach beyond the core vote, although he never quite worked out what to do with the votes when he had them. Until or unless Labour understand they are not a religious movement aiming at ideological purity of an elect and the expulsion/ostracising of any heretics who question them, they are doomed to remain at best a minor force in politics.

That might have been Blair's genius but it depends on the corollary that traditional supporters will stick with you. Instead, they drifted away and voted for other parties or just stayed at home.

Steven_Whaley

I think the bottom line is that Labour needs to be seen to have a proper leadership contest. It's almost as much about the taking part as the winning. They just about got away with a coronation in government. I don't think they can get away with one in opposition. No contest = no exchange of ideas.

HenryGManson

Ydoethur - it used to be the TGWU which covered those who work in parliament - which then merged with Amicus to form Unite.

Sandpit

foxinsoxuk said:

Sandpit said:

If Mr Stafford Hospital does have 100 MPs behind him, we'll be looking at a seriously reduced field - could it even end up with just him and Mrs Balls able to get the signatures together?
If that happens the Tories will be over the moon!

My thoughts exactly. But also it is not good for a party if the leader is not backed by its own MPs (Ed springs to mind). If Liz can only just scrape together 35, is it a base big enough for authority in the house? We do not see many declaring for her yet.

That is true, that the leader needs to at least have the respect of the Parliamentary party.

As an outsider, the problem seems to be that the MPs themselves are of the mindset that Ed himself was the problem at the election, rather than what Ed and the party represented.

Burnham and Cooper represent continuity of that approach, whereas Kendall and Hunt represent a break with it - as happened in 1994 if they dare to remember Blair. Blair being of course the only leader who won elections for Labour in the past 40 years.

DecrepitJohnL

Sandpit said:

If Mr Stafford Hospital does have 100 MPs behind him, we'll be looking at a seriously reduced field - could it even end up with just him and Mrs Balls able to get the signatures together?
If that happens the Tories will be over the moon!

Just as Gordon Brown did not cause the gobal financial crisis, so the Stafford Hospital scandal occurred before Burnham was Health Secretary.

ydoethur

DecrepitJohnL said:

That might have been Blair's genius but it depends on the corollary that traditional supporters will stick with you. Instead, they drifted away and voted for other parties or just stayed at home.

And that is of course what happens when you win an election and have no idea what to do beyond that. That was Blair's greatest failure and why, although he was more electorally successful than Clement Attlee or Harold Macmillan, it is unlikely he will be ranked especially high in the pantheon of British PMs. I'd put him somewhere near Salisbury, in the middle of the pack.

ydoethur

HenryGManson said:

Ydoethur - it used to be the TGWU which covered those who work in parliament - which then merged with Amicus to form Unite.

Thanks.

SquareRoot

HenryGManson said:

Incidentally MPs aren't sponsored by unions any more. That stopped about ten years ago. They have constituency development arrangements with local parties but they're agreed and voted on by the local General Management Committee members. I don't know if it's still the case but you used to have to be a member of a trade union to be a candidate for public office for Labour. All Labour MPs should be trade union members.

Semantics.. and why should a Labour MP be a trade union member.. Its because they a\re that the trouble has arisen. This is 2015 not 1964
Len MCllusky has done more to damage Labour that just about anyone else.

HenryGManson

The big thing that will potentially distort the Labour leadership election is the fact that over 40% of Labour's members live in London. A real problem for reaching out into areas threatened by UKIP if those members have a different view of the world.

dr_spyn

Burnham threatened to sue Jeremy Hunt, when is the court case?

http://labourlist.org/2013/10/why-im-considering-legal-action-against-jeremy-hunt/

ydoethur

DecrepitJohnL said:

Just as Gordon Brown did not cause the gobal financial crisis, so the Stafford Hospital scandal occurred before Burnham was Health Secretary.

He still gets a lot of blame for it though, especially round here - not because he had anything to do with the causes of it, but because he was accused of covering it up.

john_zims

@HenryGManson

'Unions cannot install a leader or hijack a process.'

Has anyone told McClusky ?

felix

HenryGManson said:

Incidentally MPs aren't sponsored by unions any more. That stopped about ten years ago. They have constituency development arrangements with local parties but they're agreed and voted on by the local General Management Committee members. I don't know if it's still the case but you used to have to be a member of a trade union to be a candidate for public office for Labour. All Labour MPs should be trade union members.

Lol - dinosaur in the room, black is white . Move along, nothing happening here.

Morris_Dancer

Mr. Manson, presumably that'd help leftier, more metropolitan chaps like Burnham, yes?

Well, I say 'chaps'. At the moment there are 4 candidates, and 3 are women. Thank goodness Toksvig set up her party for female equality

kle4

ydoethur said:

Sandpit said:

Okay, so no big Chuka story. Media holding something back or couldn't back it up?

The alternative is that he either couldn't get the votes together or sees this as a good election to lost, so would prefer to position himself for the next one in 2018 or 2020.

Possibly the second. I doubt if it would be the first. If Diane Abbott could get enough votes...

She couldn't. Another candidate withdrew and asked his supporters to back her for the explicit reason so that there would be a woman nominated. Pathetic. Thank goodness a couple of female candidates should be able to be nominated on merit this time.

Sandpit

DecrepitJohnL said:

Sandpit said:

If Mr Stafford Hospital does have 100 MPs behind him, we'll be looking at a seriously reduced field - could it even end up with just him and Mrs Balls able to get the signatures together?
If that happens the Tories will be over the moon!

Just as Gordon Brown did not cause the gobal financial crisis, so the Stafford Hospital scandal occurred before Burnham was Health Secretary.

Burnham was the Minister that approved Trust status for Stafford, without even looking at the report recommending otherwise.
He was also the Secretary of State that didn't want the investigation into the deaths there publishing - as it was critical of the hospital and the NHS governance and he didn't want to upset the staff and their union.

edmundintokyo

notme said:

Back to the topic. Isnt the system that Labour are using to elect their leader a new system introduced by Miliband? Couldn't they even get that simple process right?

So the system is that the parliamentary party nominates a shortlist then all the members get a vote. How do you think they should have done it?

kle4

DecrepitJohnL said:

Sandpit said:

Okay, so no big Chuka story. Media holding something back or couldn't back it up?

The alternative is that he either couldn't get the votes together or sees this as a good election to lost, so would prefer to position himself for the next one in 2018 or 2020.

If so, it is not without risk as new challengers could emerge. Political serendipity, as it were: if Shaun Woodward had not defected, David Cameron would not have replaced him in the safe seat of Witney; if Martin Bell had not ousted Neil Hamilton, then George Osborne would not now be MP for Tatton. Who can tell what future ministers or even prime ministers lurk in the new Labour intake?

Of course, it is entirely possible Chuka and Dan Jarvis have looked at the personal abuse hurled at Ed Miliband and previously Gordon Brown, and decided it's not worth the candle.

Not credible in chukas case - he would not have declared in that case.

YBarddCwsc

YDoethur

" Tristram Hunt is another. I'm no socialist, but if I had lived in Stoke-on-Trent Central in 2010 I would have voted for Gary Elsby on principle (he also has other qualities that would have made him great fun in the House of Commons including an impish sense of humour, but that's another story)”

I guess there is a bubbling fountain of public schoolboys & schoolgirls, Oxbridge PPE-ers, who all want to become Labour politicians .... and nowhere for them to stand except places like Aberavon and Stoke-on-Trent Central.

And so ... we get this terrible narrowing of the life experience of Labour MPs. They all represent Oxbridge Central or A Hill in North London -- no matter whether they are standing in Doncaster or South Wales.

"I'm wondering if this is another heartland where, if the conditions were right, Labour could end up under huge pressure. On these figures, next year's Assembly elections might offer a few decent possibilities for some surprise gains. A lot would of course depend on Plaid Cymru - who would have to be the realistic challengers in most of these seats - but Carwyn Jones' regime looks to me to be on the way out, and something would have to replace it if it imploded."

I do think -- if UKIP find the right person for Wales -- they could pummel Labour in the Valleys. The Euro elections was a surprising performance, & UKIP are in second place in most of the Eastern Valley seats.

Probably, UKIP won’t do it. And certainly the right person is not Nathan the Chancer from Anglesey. But, the potential is certainly there. The Welsh Labour vote in the Valleys is flabby, and politically much more right-wing than their MPs.

Plaid Cymru should be able to do it, but they always disappoint. Everyone else had no trouble taking candy from the LibDems, but somehow Plaid went backwards in Ceredigion.

Labour are certainly looking tired in the Assembly, & they need to lose power to an effective opposition for the good of democracy. Has any other other party in Western Europe been continuously in power since 1999 ?

Charles

Sandpit said:

.

Burnham and Cooper represent continuity of that approach, whereas Kendall and Hunt represent a break with it - as happened in 1994 if they dare to remember Blair. Blair being of course the only leader who won elections for Labour in the past 40 years.

Blair wasn't the outsider in 1994 - he was absolutely seen as an up-and-coming future leader (he'd been an MP for 11 years). He was perceived as being behind Brown, but he was definitely a respected and mainstream candidate, not a newbie.

foxinsoxuk

DecrepitJohnL said:

ydoethur said:

So to finish that comment off - I think there is every chance Labour will mistake 'topping up its majorities in places like Manchester and Liverpool' with 'broadening its appeal to the rest of the country.' That is how insular they have become. It was Blair's genius to understand he had to reach beyond the core vote, although he never quite worked out what to do with the votes when he had them. Until or unless Labour understand they are not a religious movement aiming at ideological purity of an elect and the expulsion/ostracising of any heretics who question them, they are doomed to remain at best a minor force in politics.

That might have been Blair's genius but it depends on the corollary that traditional supporters will stick with you. Instead, they drifted away and voted for other parties or just stayed at home.

They need someone who can win Nuneaton, Loughborough, Broxtowe and Glasgow. A very tall order, and one that I cannot see Cooper or Burnham managing.

This leadership election is about whether they are serious.

Charles

SeanT said:

Its entirely possible that by 2020 the Tories will have fixed the economy, and they will then be tossed out of power by an ungrateful electorate, sick of poshos, who want to see a bit of spending again. It has happened before.

When, precisely?

In 1997 the Tories were exhausted and divided, as well as having their reputation for economic competence tarnished by Black Wednesday.

SquareRoot

edmundintokyo said:

notme said:

Back to the topic. Isnt the system that Labour are using to elect their leader a new system introduced by Miliband? Couldn't they even get that simple process right?

So the system is that the parliamentary party nominates a shortlist then all the members get a vote. How do you think they should have done it?

If Labour continue as they are it'll be Martin Day calling Taxi For Labour. The Union influence on Labour is a pox on the party, but they need their money. Its sort of a parasitic co-existence that is badly viewed by the middle ground voters.

Charles

kle4 said:

ydoethur said:

Sandpit said:

Okay, so no big Chuka story. Media holding something back or couldn't back it up?

The alternative is that he either couldn't get the votes together or sees this as a good election to lost, so would prefer to position himself for the next one in 2018 or 2020.

Possibly the second. I doubt if it would be the first. If Diane Abbott could get enough votes...

She couldn't. Another candidate withdrew and asked his supporters to back her for the explicit reason so that there would be a woman nominated. Pathetic. Thank goodness a couple of female candidates should be able to be nominated on merit this time.

I seem to remember that at the end (despite the above) she had to beg David Miliband for a handful of his nominators to clear the threshold. He agreed, thinking it might divide the leftie vote.

edmundintokyo

SquareRoot said:

edmundintokyo said:

notme said:

Back to the topic. Isnt the system that Labour are using to elect their leader a new system introduced by Miliband? Couldn't they even get that simple process right?

So the system is that the parliamentary party nominates a shortlist then all the members get a vote. How do you think they should have done it?

If Labour continue as they are it'll be Martin Day calling Taxi For Labour. The Union influence on Labour is a pox on the party, but they need their money. Its sort of a parasitic co-existence that is badly viewed by the middle ground voters.

What system are you advocating?

John_N

I've been looking at the Chuka Umunna pullout, about which the rumours are flying.

The latest one I've heard has alleged that some people got upset with some of the stamps in Alice Sullivan's passport.

My question is this: Is it true, as John Le Carré describes in his novel A Delicate Truth, that ministers nowadays don't only have their red ministerial boxes with the crown symbol on, but they also have black canisters from the US embassy?

Maybe this is only at some departments, such as defence, or what?

I thought some people here would know.

FluffyThoughts

YBarddCwsc said:

...
But, nothing was sadder than the Labour party stitch-up in Aberavon. A rich man, with no connection to the constituency and with little time to spend in it, now represents some of the most deprived wards in South Wales.

Did not Master Kinnock claim to be a Swiss resident? Maybe the plastic-Dane has failed to provide for his pension and is now expecting the English tax-payer to provide it. There may be a precedent....

MarqueeMark

Sandpit said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Sandpit said:

If Mr Stafford Hospital does have 100 MPs behind him, we'll be looking at a seriously reduced field - could it even end up with just him and Mrs Balls able to get the signatures together?
If that happens the Tories will be over the moon!

Just as Gordon Brown did not cause the gobal financial crisis, so the Stafford Hospital scandal occurred before Burnham was Health Secretary.

Burnham was the Minister that approved Trust status for Stafford, without even looking at the report recommending otherwise.
He was also the Secretary of State that didn't want the investigation into the deaths there publishing - as it was critical of the hospital and the NHS governance and he didn't want to upset the staff and their union.

I just don't see Burnham getting out from under that pile of horrific back-story. Whether justified or not. Labour are great at mis-using a back story against an opponent. He will get in played back at him in spades.

notme

foxinsoxuk said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

ydoethur said:

So to finish that comment off - I think there is every chance Labour will mistake 'topping up its majorities in places like Manchester and Liverpool' with 'broadening its appeal to the rest of the country.' That is how insular they have become. It was Blair's genius to understand he had to reach beyond the core vote, although he never quite worked out what to do with the votes when he had them. Until or unless Labour understand they are not a religious movement aiming at ideological purity of an elect and the expulsion/ostracising of any heretics who question them, they are doomed to remain at best a minor force in politics.

That might have been Blair's genius but it depends on the corollary that traditional supporters will stick with you. Instead, they drifted away and voted for other parties or just stayed at home.

They need someone who can win Nuneaton, Loughborough, Broxtowe and Glasgow. A very tall order, and one that I cannot see Cooper or Burnham managing.

This leadership election is about whether they are serious.

All those seats are much much harder now. Nuneaton from 2,000 to almost 5,000. Broxtowe from 389 to 4,287.

These arent the nailed on marginals that will fall in a gently swing, these are now much tougher. We have new marginals now. Just getting back to where they were before last week is going to be a task.

Sandpit

Charles said:

Sandpit said:

.

Burnham and Cooper represent continuity of that approach, whereas Kendall and Hunt represent a break with it - as happened in 1994 if they dare to remember Blair. Blair being of course the only leader who won elections for Labour in the past 40 years.

Blair wasn't the outsider in 1994 - he was absolutely seen as an up-and-coming future leader (he'd been an MP for 11 years). He was perceived as being behind Brown, but he was definitely a respected and mainstream candidate, not a newbie.

But Blair was a very different man to Kinnock, Smith I didn't know too much but I think was somewhere between the two.

Both Smith and Blair represented the future of the party, whereas today Burnham and Cooper certainly don't. If Labour were thinking the same now as in '94, they would go with a centrist reformer, in the mold of Kendall, Hunt or Jarvis.

foxinsoxuk

Sandpit said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Sandpit said:

If Mr Stafford Hospital does have 100 MPs behind him, we'll be looking at a seriously reduced field - could it even end up with just him and Mrs Balls able to get the signatures together?
If that happens the Tories will be over the moon!

Just as Gordon Brown did not cause the gobal financial crisis, so the Stafford Hospital scandal occurred before Burnham was Health Secretary.

Burnham was the Minister that approved Trust status for Stafford, without even looking at the report recommending otherwise.
He was also the Secretary of State that didn't want the investigation into the deaths there publishing - as it was critical of the hospital and the NHS governance and he didn't want to upset the staff and their union.

According to the timeline here:

https://witchdoctor.wordpress.com/2013/02/15/mid-staffordshire-a-decade-of-warnings/

Mid Staffs got FT status on 1 Feb 2008. At that time Andy Burnham had just started as Minister for Culture Media and Sport, previously Chief Sec to the Treasury.

notme

edmundintokyo said:

notme said:

Back to the topic. Isnt the system that Labour are using to elect their leader a new system introduced by Miliband? Couldn't they even get that simple process right?

So the system is that the parliamentary party nominates a shortlist then all the members get a vote. How do you think they should have done it?

You need to ask the labour mp who referred to it as akin to a banana republic.

DecrepitJohnL

YBarddCwsc said:

YDoethur
I guess there is a bubbling fountain of public schoolboys & schoolgirls, Oxbridge PPE-ers, who all want to become Labour politicians .... and nowhere for them to stand except places like Aberavon and Stoke-on-Trent Central.

And so ... we get this terrible narrowing of the life experience of Labour MPs. They all represent Oxbridge Central or A Hill in North London -- no matter whether they are standing in Doncaster or South Wales.

Conservative MPs too, and political journalists. In all the fuss about Dave's school chums, we lost focus on the overbearing influence of the Oxford PPE course.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_University_of_Oxford_people_with_PPE_degrees#UK_politicians

JosiasJessop

DecrepitJohnL said:

Sandpit said:

If Mr Stafford Hospital does have 100 MPs behind him, we'll be looking at a seriously reduced field - could it even end up with just him and Mrs Balls able to get the signatures together?
If that happens the Tories will be over the moon!

Just as Gordon Brown did not cause the gobal financial crisis, so the Stafford Hospital scandal occurred before Burnham was Health Secretary.

He went for a watered-down inquiry that was not held in public.

Burnham says that he regrets the inquiry into Stafford because it hurt the trust's reputation, whilst (rightly) supporting an inquiry into Hillsborough.

The people of Liverpool are apparently more deserving of the truth than those of Stafford

He's scum.

FluffyThoughts

DecrepitJohnL said:

If so, it is not without risk as new challengers could emerge. Political serendipity, as it were: if Shaun Woodward had not defected, David Cameron would not have replaced him in the safe seat of Witney; if Martin Bell had not ousted Neil Hamilton, then George Osborne would not now be MP for Tatton....

OMMFG!

DJL: You should know better! Correlation != Causation.

:butterfly-effects-and-such:

SquareRoot

edmundintokyo said:

SquareRoot said:

edmundintokyo said:

notme said:

Back to the topic. Isnt the system that Labour are using to elect their leader a new system introduced by Miliband? Couldn't they even get that simple process right?

So the system is that the parliamentary party nominates a shortlist then all the members get a vote. How do you think they should have done it?

If Labour continue as they are it'll be Martin Day calling Taxi For Labour. The Union influence on Labour is a pox on the party, but they need their money. Its sort of a parasitic co-existence that is badly viewed by the middle ground voters.

What system are you advocating?

Its very much a case if If I were you, I wouldn't start from here... you only have to see the poison that the Unions are... Labour have just lost the election so the RMT union decides to piss off millions of travellers by going on strike..
Until you can get rid of Union influence, Labour are going to struggle.

RobC

I am amazed that Labour really thinks its best chances lie with a slippery and partisan union backed opportunist like Burnham. Right now he is busy rowing back from his flirtation with the left and playing to the centrist gallery. Pick Burnham and lose in 2020.

By contrast Kendall I have been impressed with so far and could quite easily see her take the crucial votes from former Lib Dems and other floating voters. Best of all a woman leader might indicate Labour have moved away from the antediluvian attitudes of sections of that party.

Sandpit

foxinsoxuk said:

Sandpit said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Sandpit said:

If Mr Stafford Hospital does have 100 MPs behind him, we'll be looking at a seriously reduced field - could it even end up with just him and Mrs Balls able to get the signatures together?
If that happens the Tories will be over the moon!

Just as Gordon Brown did not cause the gobal financial crisis, so the Stafford Hospital scandal occurred before Burnham was Health Secretary.

Burnham was the Minister that approved Trust status for Stafford, without even looking at the report recommending otherwise.
He was also the Secretary of State that didn't want the investigation into the deaths there publishing - as it was critical of the hospital and the NHS governance and he didn't want to upset the staff and their union.

According to the timeline here:

https://witchdoctor.wordpress.com/2013/02/15/mid-staffordshire-a-decade-of-warnings/

Mid Staffs got FT status on 1 Feb 2008. At that time Andy Burnham had just started as Minister for Culture Media and Sport, previously Chief Sec to the Treasury.

I had a slightly different timeline, that Burham made the decision while he was still at DoH before he moved to DCMS.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-stoke-staffordshire-14854744

At a public inquiry into failings at Stafford Hospital, former health secretary Andy Burnham defended his decision to propose that Mid Staffordshire NHS Trust be considered for foundation trust status.

Mr Burnham said he was just following official advice. He said he made the decision on the basis of a four-line memo, which did not reflect previous concerns of civil servants.

Morris_Dancer

Not sure this counts as news, but at least it's getting an airing.

IS maniacs are coming to Europe via the Libyan refugee boats: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-32770390

SquareRoot

Sean T

MP's don't seem to die like they used to. I suspect a lot of it is to do with the drop in smoking.. How many Mp's now smoke..?

I gave up 2 yrs ago and am about £300 a month better off.. and I am much healthier than I was, that's for certain.

Jonathan

Lot of excited talk about a Labour civil war this morning that doesn't quite stack up to the truth of a few folk in suits arguing about not very much at all.

Sandpit

Ooh, it seems that Mr Stafford will be on Marr in a minute or two.