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.
They should have a rule that if you couldn't beat Ed Miliband, you're not allowed to stand in any more leadership contests.
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.
The voters clearly were happy with Cameron's background - and apparently less convinced by Mr. Miliband. I suspect the point is that background doesn't matter nearly so much to ordinary folk as the Labour party seem to think. They are the ones obsessive about it. They are the ones who like to check boxes all the time. Look at Manson downthread - Labour MPs must be in a TU - wtf! Why ffs??? it's 2015 not 1915.
It seems to me that the reasons behind Chukas withdrawal from the leadership race appears to be small beer. However this is where Labour and in particular the left always always get caught out. The classic don't do as I do do as I say scenario. Chucka. Would probably have been fine if his party and him in particular had not used the last 2 years shouting about a "cost of living crisis" every 5 minutes and claiming every "hard working family" £1600 quid worse off
Meanwhile Chukas pissing it up at one of the most exclusive clubs in London with eye watering prices the likes of which nearly all people could never afford. It's always the actions Labour and the left in general take which don't match the words and thus makes the words just seem a way of of scoring against their opponents rather than anything meaningful. They treat their supporters with contempt as they always do and then wonder why they lose. Would have been better if he pitched up at a food bank and the expensive cognac and steaks into the basket while donating the membership to shelter or similar.
Basically they are just a bunch of hyocritical chancers who really don't give a flying feck about anyone but themselves. That is why they lost and that is why Chuka knew his opportunity was going to be dogged by the hypocritical actions he has engaged in.
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.
The voters clearly were happy with Cameron's background - and apparently less convinced by Mr. Miliband. I suspect the point is that background doesn't matter nearly so much to ordinary folk as the Labour party seem to think. They are the ones obsessive about it. They are the ones who like to check boxes all the time. Look at Manson downthread - Labour MPs must be in a TU - wtf! Why ffs??? it's 2015 not 1915.
The point is not whether voters hold it against their MP -- why should they? -- so much as half the Establishment having done the same course at the same university.
"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."
I agree, except for Glasgow - Scotland is on its way out of the UK, so seats there will no longer matter from a Westminster perspective.
A close colleague of mine was the unsuccessful Labour candidate for a Mid English marginal. He did better than most in Middle England and reduced the deficit vs Con with a swing of over 2% to Lab. He told me that the local council elections conducted simultaneously gave a clue as to where the election was lost. Labour support held up in the poorest wards, but was below that needed in more affluent suburbs of the town. Extensive canvassing over the past 2 years had not been as effective as hoped.
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.
The EU referendum, and likely defeat of OUT, might cause a couple of defections. Especially if the result is close and the sceptics feel cheated.
A win for OUT could be tricky, too. The next question is going to be what kind of OUT, and the instincts of people at the top are going to be to try to come up with a new non-membership deal that's as close to the status quo ante as possible. This is going to leave the antis righteously miffed, and convinced that the voters agree with them.
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.
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.
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.
Before DCMS he was Chief Sec to the Treasury, not in Health. He may have been asked to sign off approval on the finances, but it would not have been on clinical issues. The Clinical issues were under Milburn, Reid, Hewitt and Johnson. Burnham took over at Health in June 2009, and started the first external enquiry within a month. This was pretty damning and was followed by the later public enquiry initiated by Lansley. There are pros and cons to public enquiries, but they are certainly slower to get to a conclusion.
The Stafford Crisis was nothing to do with Burnham, but everything to do with New Labour's health service reforms.
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.
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.
Stephen Kinnock went to Queens’ College, Cambridge. The really sad thing is that, I bet, no-one from Aberavon constituency will go up to Cambridge in 2015.
Absolutely no-one. Wales is massively under-represented anyhow at Oxbridge, and Aberavon will be right at the bottom of the heap. (And some of the blame for that lies with Welsh Labour who run education in Wales).
My uncle ran a shop in Sandlands in Aberavon.
I remember visiting it is a child. It was the first time I encountered really, really shocking poverty. The place is still as poor today (although my uncle’s shop is now a Chinese Takeway).
Almost the last person who should represent Aberavon is Stephen Kinnock, a wealthy man who has a home in Denmark. But, Labour chose him, Labour’s shame.
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.
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.
Before DCMS he was Chief Sec to the Treasury, not in Health. He may have been asked to sign off approval on the finances, but it would not have been on clinical issues. The Clinical issues were under Milburn, Reid, Hewitt and Johnson. Burnham took over at Health in June 2009, and started the first external enquiry within a month. This was pretty damning and was followed by the later public enquiry initiated by Lansley. There are pros and cons to public enquiries, but they are certainly slower to get to a conclusion.
The Stafford Crisis was nothing to do with Burnham, but everything to do with New Labour's health service reforms.
June 2007 – Trust receives support from health minister Andy Burnham to have its foundation trust bid decided by Monitor. Mr Burnham told the public inquiry he believed this would be an “intensive and rigorous” assessment. But he admitted the reality had been “180 degrees away from what my understanding was”.
Its bid was approved by another regulator Monitor and signed off in June 2007 by Andy Burnham, who was then a junior minister but later became health secretary and now holds the shadow post in opposition. In fact, it was the decision by the board to go for foundation trust status that contributed to much of the cost-cutting drive that undermined care.
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.
Are you sure that's true? Sounds incredible. Is that very much a post-Blair thing?
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.
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.
Before DCMS he was Chief Sec to the Treasury, not in Health. He may have been asked to sign off approval on the finances, but it would not have been on clinical issues. The Clinical issues were under Milburn, Reid, Hewitt and Johnson. Burnham took over at Health in June 2009, and started the first external enquiry within a month. This was pretty damning and was followed by the later public enquiry initiated by Lansley. There are pros and cons to public enquiries, but they are certainly slower to get to a conclusion.
The Stafford Crisis was nothing to do with Burnham, but everything to do with New Labour's health service reforms.
June 2007 – Trust receives support from health minister Andy Burnham to have its foundation trust bid decided by Monitor. Mr Burnham told the public inquiry he believed this would be an “intensive and rigorous” assessment. But he admitted the reality had been “180 degrees away from what my understanding was”.
Its bid was approved by another regulator Monitor and signed off in June 2007 by Andy Burnham, who was then a junior minister but later became health secretary and now holds the shadow post in opposition. In fact, it was the decision by the board to go for foundation trust status that contributed to much of the cost-cutting drive that undermined care.
So if you tinker with events the outcome will always be the same? Had someone waited a day before/after that faitful event history would have not changed (in the the Time-Space-Continniumn) a single iota?
Glass is pretty clear: Sadly - like most silicates - it is a liquid and not a solid.....
So if you tincker with events the outcome will always be the same? Had someone waited a day before/after that faitful event history would have not changed (in the the Time-Space-Continniumn) a single iota?
Glass is pretty clear: Sadly - like most silicates - it is a liquid and not a solid.....
Eh? I'm saying there was a direct link. You may have misread it; perhaps I was unclear.
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.
Stephen Kinnock went to Queens’ College, Cambridge. The really sad thing is that, I bet, no-one from Aberavon constituency will go up to Cambridge in 2015.
Absolutely no-one. Wales is massively under-represented anyhow at Oxbridge, and Aberavon will be right at the bottom of the heap. (And some of the blame for that lies with Welsh Labour who run education in Wales).
My uncle ran a shop in Sandlands in Aberavon.
I remember visiting it is a child. It was the first time I encountered really, really shocking poverty. The place is still as poor today (although my uncle’s shop is now a Chinese Takeway).
Almost the last person who should represent Aberavon is Stephen Kinnock, a wealthy man who has a home in Denmark. But, Labour chose him, Labour’s shame.
Eh? I'm saying there was a direct link. You may have misread it; perhaps I was unclear.
I may have misread: Sorry!
Shaun Woodward - or his butler - are entirely responsible for the Tory 2015 victory. His (or their) cunning plan to undermine England's finances (using Scots Agent provocateur knumbskulls) were a strategic plan to bannish Labour from - Scotland, then England - and he/they were in cohort with 'A bloke in a White Suit'.
End result: Cammers and Ozzie! What a master-plan.
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.
Are you sure that's true? Sounds incredible. Is that very much a post-Blair thing?
I've read that this is a bit of an urban myth. I'd link but I'm on iPad and can't be arsed. Google-fu!
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.
Are you sure that's true? Sounds incredible. Is that very much a post-Blair thing?
I thought it was nearer to 50%. either way it is way too high a proportion. The London experience is important but very different from the rest of the country.
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.
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.
The Stafford Crisis was nothing to do with Burnham, but everything to do with New Labour's health service reforms.
June 2007 – Trust receives support from health minister Andy Burnham to have its foundation trust bid decided by Monitor. Mr Burnham told the public inquiry he believed this would be an “intensive and rigorous” assessment. But he admitted the reality had been “180 degrees away from what my understanding was”.
Its bid was approved by another regulator Monitor and signed off in June 2007 by Andy Burnham, who was then a junior minister but later became health secretary and now holds the shadow post in opposition. In fact, it was the decision by the board to go for foundation trust status that contributed to much of the cost-cutting drive that undermined care.
Burnham was junior minister of Health for a year in 2006-7. That would have been under Patricia Hewitt. He was there only a year, before being reshuffled to the Treasury when Brown moved to PM.
I think that the political blame for Stafford goes much wider than Burnham, and the worst happened under other regimes, Patricia Hewitt and Alan Johnson in particular. It was symptomatic of the whole approach to targets under New Labour.
June 2007 – Trust receives support from health minister Andy Burnham to have its foundation trust bid decided by Monitor. Mr Burnham told the public inquiry he believed this would be an “intensive and rigorous” assessment. But he admitted the reality had been “180 degrees away from what my understanding was”.
Its bid was approved by another regulator Monitor and signed off in June 2007 by Andy Burnham, who was then a junior minister but later became health secretary and now holds the shadow post in opposition. In fact, it was the decision by the board to go for foundation trust status that contributed to much of the cost-cutting drive that undermined care.
To say Burnham was responsible for the Mid Staffs scandal is stretching it more than somewhat. To say he was responsible for the events at the hospital is possibly stretching things a little. To say he was responsible for the coverup and trying to bury the enquiry into the scandal when he was SoS for Health is quite reasonable.
Labour need to think very carefully about who they elect in terms of how the Tories would attack them ahead of the next election. With Andy Burnham, they will raise Mid Staffs Hospital deaths over and over again. Even when Burnham did not take over as Health Secretary until 2009 and commissioned the first review.
Best option in my opinion would be Yvette Cooper, as I think she would perform very well against Cameron and I don't think there are many attack options available for the Tories. Cameron is not very good at dealing with Women and I think she would get under his skin, causing him to respond badly.
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.
Amazing how many people already know the result of the 2020 general election.
Especially as they were unable to predict the 2015 general election a week beforehand.
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.
No. This Labour leadership election is about how much influence the unions have on these elections. That will dictate the betting market valuations.
Its bid was approved by another regulator Monitor and signed off in June 2007 by Andy Burnham, who was then a junior minister but later became health secretary and now holds the shadow post in opposition. In fact, it was the decision by the board to go for foundation trust status that contributed to much of the cost-cutting drive that undermined care.
Burnham was junior minister of Health for a year in 2006-7. That would have been under Patricia Hewitt. He was there only a year, before being reshuffled to the Treasury when Brown moved to PM.
I think that the political blame for Stafford goes much wider than Burnham, and the worst happened under other regimes, Patricia Hewitt and Alan Johnson in particular. It was symptomatic of the whole approach to targets under New Labour.
The political blame certainly goes wider than just Burnham, but he was in charge of the department when it tried to cover up the report into 1200 deaths. Because it looked bad and criticised his beloved NHS, he would rather bury the report than have the issues publicly discussed.
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.
Stephen Kinnock went to Queens’ College, Cambridge. The really sad thing is that, I bet, no-one from Aberavon constituency will go up to Cambridge in 2015.
Absolutely no-one. Wales is massively under-represented anyhow at Oxbridge, and Aberavon will be right at the bottom of the heap. (And some of the blame for that lies with Welsh Labour who run education in Wales).
My uncle ran a shop in Sandlands in Aberavon.
I remember visiting it is a child. It was the first time I encountered really, really shocking poverty. The place is still as poor today (although my uncle’s shop is now a Chinese Takeway).
Almost the last person who should represent Aberavon is Stephen Kinnock, a wealthy man who has a home in Denmark. But, Labour chose him, Labour’s shame.
Little Lord Kinnock, what a self-serving bunch his family are.
Labour need to think very carefully about who they elect in terms of how the Tories would attack them ahead of the next election. With Andy Burnham, they will raise Mid Staffs Hospital deaths over and over again. Even when Burnham did not take over as Health Secretary until 2009 and commissioned the first review.
Best option in my opinion would be Yvette Cooper, as I think she would perform very well against Cameron and I don't think there are many attack options available for the Tories. Cameron is not very good at dealing with Women and I think she would get under his skin, causing him to respond badly.
Lots of personal opinions there.. Lots of assumptions..
Burnham coming a bit unstuck on the Union issue... The unifying candidate... Ouch, clunky
Having a history of enjoying yourself at a nightclub is terminal for Labour leadership candidates, but ruining the NHS (with its unionised workers) makes you favourite.
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?
Labour (well, all party) leaders should be picked by the editor of the Daily Mail.
"I certainly had not appreciated the scale of UNITE’s influence over the party – though almost all discussions relating to Labour at the moment seem to have a UNITE angle. "
6 years on, UNITE now have tentacles in 2/3 of Labour's MPs.
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.
Stephen Kinnock went to Queens’ College, Cambridge. The really sad thing is that, I bet, no-one from Aberavon constituency will go up to Cambridge in 2015.
Absolutely no-one. Wales is massively under-represented anyhow at Oxbridge, and Aberavon will be right at the bottom of the heap. (And some of the blame for that lies with Welsh Labour who run education in Wales).
My uncle ran a shop in Sandlands in Aberavon.
I remember visiting it is a child. It was the first time I encountered really, really shocking poverty. The place is still as poor today (although my uncle’s shop is now a Chinese Takeway).
Almost the last person who should represent Aberavon is Stephen Kinnock, a wealthy man who has a home in Denmark. But, Labour chose him, Labour’s shame.
Little Lord Kinnock, what a self-serving bunch his family are.
Stephen Kinnock does come across well in interviews. Of course as a representative of a very poor area he is, like Tristam Hunt, completely out of touch. So be it.
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.
Amazing how many people already know the result of the 2020 general election.
Especially as they were unable to predict the 2015 general election a week beforehand.
All very 1992.
Being wrong never stopped a politician, pundit or commentator from confidently predicting the outcome of something else. It certainly won't stop me, though I've held off predicting who will in 2020 at the moment, as my immediate prediction of Lab win as soon as the coalition was formed last time proved somewhat questionable it seems.
Another Richard says; "Amazing how many people already know the result of the 2020 general election.
Especially as they were unable to predict the 2015 general election a week beforehand.
All very 1992."
You failed dismally in your forecasts. Others didn't.
Perhaps you'd like to show me those forecasts you claim I failed so dismally at.
Or you could check with antifrank about my prediction that UKIP would hurt Labour far more than the Conservatives and that would be especially true in constituencies like Sherwood.
Or you could ask Richard Nabavi about the 9/2 Conservatives to win Elemt & Rothwell @ Paddy Power I recommended to him.
Or my prediction that London and the North-West would be the best Labour areas but that Labour would only gain Dewsbury from the Conservatives in Yorkshire.
Or my amazement that Labour supporters here prematurely celebrating victory on the day before the election.
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.
Are you sure that's true? Sounds incredible. Is that very much a post-Blair thing?
I thought it was nearer to 50%. either way it is way too high a proportion. The London experience is important but very different from the rest of the country.
The Lib Dems have a similar problem with their membership being mainly in London and the wrong place for their "re-building".
"I certainly had not appreciated the scale of UNITE’s influence over the party – though almost all discussions relating to Labour at the moment seem to have a UNITE angle. "
6 years on, UNITE now have tentacles in 2/3 of Labour's MPs.
All this makes me think that the left may spring a surprise nomination upon us- Stephen Kinnock anyone?
It is at the nomination stage that Unions can still exercise what I would regard as a malign influence over Labour's leadership selection. With such a high proportion of Labour MPs either members or beneficiaries of financial support they can determine who the leadership choices are by stopping candidates getting 35 nominees. It is democratic like HK or Iran is. The people get a free choice but only from the approved candidates.
For a party that needs to reach out to large tranches of people with little Union contact, let alone membership, this is potentially disastrous but a strong leader could overcome these difficulties wherever they start from. It is just that none of those on the Union approved list look particularly strong.
To put it in perspective Labour are going to need to win over something like 1m people who voted Tory this time unless they make a recovery in Scotland, something that looks even less likely following this week's shenanigans. I think Kendall is the only one who has even the potential to do that and she is of course very far from the finished article. If she does blocked at the nomination stage Labour will be in deep trouble.
Surely the issue is that Unions and the "Labour movement" have both become irrelevant in the last 30 years. Employees have decent workplace protections compared to the Edwardian and Georgian era when the Labour movement first came into being. Even compared to its peak in the 1960s and 70s the difference is stark. Our manufacturing as a proportion of GDP has fallen by two thirds, the number of manufacturing jobs has fallen by over half and those that remain tend to be value added or high tech rather than the dirty manufacturing jobs of the past.
We still have a massive working class, but they all tend to work for Tesco, or are bank cashiers and do other entry level service jobs. I don't see what Labour offer them that that the Tories don't offer them and few of them need the unions.
Until Labour can offer the Tesco worker a reason to vote Labour, they will be the party of the public sector paperwork generator and the non-working classes.
I don't think Burnham will be particularly helpful in reaching out to these groups who have thrown their lot in with the Tories and UKIP lately. He doesn't offer anything different to Ed.
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.
Amazing how many people already know the result of the 2020 general election.
Especially as they were unable to predict the 2015 general election a week beforehand.
All very 1992.
Being wrong never stopped a politician, pundit or commentator from confidently predicting the outcome of something else. It certainly won't stop me, though I've held off predicting who will in 2020 at the moment, as my immediate prediction of Lab win as soon as the coalition was formed last time proved somewhat questionable it seems.
I think its sensible to avoid specific predictions and look more for general trends. For example we've had a long term trend in the UK of the public sector middle class trending leftwards and the private sector working class trending rightwards.
If you make specific predictions you then try to fit the evidence into backing them up rather than looking at the data impartially.
And its vital when betting to look at things as impartially as possible.
Andy Burnham on Marr talking up the need for an early EU referendum, he seemed very muddled about what he expected of Cameron before calling the referendum.
Turning to SLAB, the behind the scenes story around Murphy trying to cling to power is very unedifying:
He seems to have spent the last 10 days trying to push water up hill and running around trying to "persuade" everybody to support him. I think there is real risk that Murphy will now try and take as many people down with him as possible, his true character is now shining through. If Jim truly cared about SLAB he should have resigned on 8th May, this death of a thousand cuts approach could well send SLAB below the 20% support level.
"I certainly had not appreciated the scale of UNITE’s influence over the party – though almost all discussions relating to Labour at the moment seem to have a UNITE angle. "
6 years on, UNITE now have tentacles in 2/3 of Labour's MPs.
All this makes me think that the left may spring a surprise nomination upon us- Stephen Kinnock anyone?
I have no idea how rabid a lefty he is, but he shouldn't pay any attention to his Dad who was thrilled when ED became leader.. "we've got our party back" was his claim..
Surely the issue is that Unions and the "Labour movement" have both become irrelevant in the last 30 years. Employees have decent workplace protections compared to the Edwardian and Georgian era when the Labour movement first came into being. Even compared to its peak in the 1960s and 70s the difference is stark. Our manufacturing as a proportion of GDP has fallen by two thirds, the number of manufacturing jobs has fallen by over half and those that remain tend to be value added or high tech rather than the dirty manufacturing jobs of the past.
We still have a massive working class, but they all tend to work for Tesco, or are bank cashiers and do other entry level service jobs. I don't see what Labour offer them that that the Tories don't offer them and few of them need the unions.
Until Labour can offer the Tesco worker a reason to vote Labour, they will be the party of the public sector paperwork generator and the non-working classes.
I don't think Burnham will be particularly helpful in reaching out to these groups who have thrown their lot in with the Tories and UKIP lately. He doesn't offer anything different to Ed.
Burnham would be regarded as more 'authentic' and self-made than EdM.
And less metropolitan though I suspect his 'Scouse image' might have drawbacks.
Surely the issue is that Unions and the "Labour movement" have both become irrelevant in the last 30 years. Employees have decent workplace protections compared to the Edwardian and Georgian era when the Labour movement first came into being. Even compared to its peak in the 1960s and 70s the difference is stark. Our manufacturing as a proportion of GDP has fallen by two thirds, the number of manufacturing jobs has fallen by over half and those that remain tend to be value added or high tech rather than the dirty manufacturing jobs of the past.
We still have a massive working class, but they all tend to work for Tesco, or are bank cashiers and do other entry level service jobs. I don't see what Labour offer them that that the Tories don't offer them and few of them need the unions.
Until Labour can offer the Tesco worker a reason to vote Labour, they will be the party of the public sector paperwork generator and the non-working classes.
I don't think Burnham will be particularly helpful in reaching out to these groups who have thrown their lot in with the Tories and UKIP lately. He doesn't offer anything different to Ed.
The first part of your analysis is spot on. Not so sure about the second. I see very little evidence of working class support for the Tories; though there is clearly some evidence of working class support in some parts so the country for UKIP.
We need to see how the next couple of budgets pan out, but there is every chance that welfare benefits for those in work and on low wages are going to be absolutely hammered. Let's see how UKIP responds to that.
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.
Amazing how many people already know the result of the 2020 general election.
Especially as they were unable to predict the 2015 general election a week beforehand.
All very 1992.
Being wrong never stopped a politician, pundit or commentator from confidently predicting the outcome of something else. It certainly won't stop me, though I've held off predicting who will in 2020 at the moment, as my immediate prediction of Lab win as soon as the coalition was formed last time proved somewhat questionable it seems.
I think its sensible to avoid specific predictions and look more for general trends. For example we've had a long term trend in the UK of the public sector middle class trending leftwards and the private sector working class trending rightwards.
If you make specific predictions you then try to fit the evidence into backing them up rather than looking at the data impartially.
And its vital when betting to look at things as impartially as possible.
After 5 years of majority Tory rule, I think we can expect that public sector middle class to be significantly smaller. Another difficulty for Labour to grapple with.
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?
Labour (well, all party) leaders should be picked by the editor of the Daily Mail.
That didn't work out so well for Gordon Brown, the favourite of Paul Dacre, who bent the Mail out of shape for a while lionising the Clunking Fist....
How is having an electoral college 'one man one vote' ?
There's no electoral college any more. An MP's vote is worth no more than anyone else's. Union members can still vote if they register as party supporters, but again, the vote of a union member is worth exactly the same as that of an MP, party member, or registered party supporter (you don't have to be a union member to become a registered supporter).
The main story in the Review section of the ST today are excerpts from Steve Hilton's latest book. If this is what passes as an intellectual these days then we are truly doomed.
He starts by explaining how corrupt we used to be: "Power was inherited or bought..." He then goes on to acknowledge, "We no longer have aristocratic courts and inherited offices" (clearly not au fait with the way the Labour party works) but then claims in the same sentence that "our democracies are increasingly captured by a ruling class that seeks to perpetuate its privileges. Our democratic systems, once thought inviolable have, in the apt word used by the political scientist Francis Fukuyama, "decayed." "
This inability to achieve consistency and coherence from the start to the end of a single sentence is truly troubling. As is the thought that anyone's intellectual curiosity was so diminished as to think someone capable of such incoherence was actually worth listening to.
I have always adhered to the view that someone cannot be as consistently lucky as Cameron without being a lot brighter than he lets on. Perhaps Mr Hilton was a part of the camouflage.
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.
Amazing how many people already know the result of the 2020 general election.
Especially as they were unable to predict the 2015 general election a week beforehand.
All very 1992.
Being wrong never stopped a politician, pundit or commentator from confidently predicting the outcome of something else. It certainly won't stop me, though I've held off predicting who will in 2020 at the moment, as my immediate prediction of Lab win as soon as the coalition was formed last time proved somewhat questionable it seems.
I think its sensible to avoid specific predictions and look more for general trends. For example we've had a long term trend in the UK of the public sector middle class trending leftwards and the private sector working class trending rightwards.
If you make specific predictions you then try to fit the evidence into backing them up rather than looking at the data impartially.
And its vital when betting to look at things as impartially as possible.
After 5 years of majority Tory rule, I think we can expect that public sector middle class to be significantly smaller. Another difficulty for Labour to grapple with.
The public sector middle class will sack the public sector working class first.
If Burnham is clever he will want to avoid anything that looks like a coronation. It is clear that the right wing press are in the process of portraying him as the McCluskey candidate - even though, as Henry makes clear, his campaign managers are anything but McCluskey men. So, now that he has the nomination votes he needs he should be encouraging MPs to nominate other contenders. The last thing Labour needs is a non-election. Instead, it should be debating openly and honestly what has gone wrong and how it can be put right. That means Burnham (and Cooper) explaining why Kendall and Creagh (and maybe Hunt) have got it wrong and debating with them. You don't heal deep wounds by pretending they are not there.
I was going to join Labour last week, but decided against doing so until the leadership election had taken place. I want to see what Labour decides, and how the process runs. Right now, I feel very glad I made that decision. The comfort blanket would be a disaster and there is no point in getting involved in a party that prefers that to operating in the real world.
# I placed a nice bet with 'William Hill' in 01/12 that returned me a bonus at 13/8 (as possted at the time), and # I post less than most on here; but am still not claiming victory.
2010-betting was a disaster: People, post your thoughts but don't blame others for your faults when you are wrong.
# I placed a nice bet with 'William Hill' in 01/12 that returned me a bonus at 13/8 (as possted at the time), and # I post less than most on here; but am still not claiming victory.
2010-betting was a disaster: People, post your thoughts but don't blame others for your faults when you are wrong.
another Richard: "The public sector middle class will sack the public sector working class first.
Or cut services."
Tory scum!
Er......um.......
They like to fire the most junior staff and promote others to spurious management level, if you can't protect your salary and position by employing lots of staff, you do so by ensuring your people are the highest average grade possible.
According to the latest odds Liz Kendall is nearly the same price as Yvette Cooper. This is remarkable. Yvette remains the value pick, though Burnham's had a good 24 hours and campaign seems to be in very tidy shape. I've not seen a list of 35 Kendall backers - she needs to be highlighting some respected names soon. http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/next-labour-leader
Surely the issue is that Unions and the "Labour movement" have both become irrelevant in the last 30 years. Employees have decent workplace protections compared to the Edwardian and Georgian era when the Labour movement first came into being. Even compared to its peak in the 1960s and 70s the difference is stark. Our manufacturing as a proportion of GDP has fallen by two thirds, the number of manufacturing jobs has fallen by over half and those that remain tend to be value added or high tech rather than the dirty manufacturing jobs of the past.
We still have a massive working class, but they all tend to work for Tesco, or are bank cashiers and do other entry level service jobs. I don't see what Labour offer them that that the Tories don't offer them and few of them need the unions.
Until Labour can offer the Tesco worker a reason to vote Labour, they will be the party of the public sector paperwork generator and the non-working classes.
I don't think Burnham will be particularly helpful in reaching out to these groups who have thrown their lot in with the Tories and UKIP lately. He doesn't offer anything different to Ed.
The first part of your analysis is spot on. Not so sure about the second. I see very little evidence of working class support for the Tories; though there is clearly some evidence of working class support in some parts so the country for UKIP.
We need to see how the next couple of budgets pan out, but there is every chance that welfare benefits for those in work and on low wages are going to be absolutely hammered. Let's see how UKIP responds to that.
The Tories added 600,000 votes to their 2010 total, even with the rise of UKIP. They must have received a fairly large amount of support from the working poor, Labour making just 10 gains from them (four of them in London) shows that the Tories had to be making gains from private sector working class voters if Labour were making gains from Lib Dem voters returning to Labour.
Overall I would say the drift was LD > Lab, Lab > UKIP, LD > Con, Lab > Con, Con > UKIP in order of the swing size compared to last time.
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.
Amazing how many people already know the result of the 2020 general election.
Especially as they were unable to predict the 2015 general election a week beforehand.
All very 1992.
Being wrong never stopped a politician, pundit or commentator from confidently predicting the outcome of something else. It certainly won't stop me, though I've held off predicting who will in 2020 at the moment, as my immediate prediction of Lab win as soon as the coalition was formed last time proved somewhat questionable it seems.
I think its sensible to avoid specific predictions and look more for general trends. For example we've had a long term trend in the UK of the public sector middle class trending leftwards and the private sector working class trending rightwards.
If you make specific predictions you then try to fit the evidence into backing them up rather than looking at the data impartially.
And its vital when betting to look at things as impartially as possible.
After 5 years of majority Tory rule, I think we can expect that public sector middle class to be significantly smaller. Another difficulty for Labour to grapple with.
The public sector middle class will sack the public sector working class first.
Or cut services.
True, if left to themselves. The key questions there are pensions and public pressure. I don't think it's sustainable to continue to cut front-line services while protecting terms and conditions that are well in excess of equivalent private-sector jobs.
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.
Are you sure that's true? Sounds incredible. Is that very much a post-Blair thing?
I've read that this is a bit of an urban myth. I'd link but I'm on iPad and can't be arsed. Google-fu!
Southam Observer - agree about the need for broad voices and debate in the leadership contest. The trouble is that many MPs like to be on the winning side and also to be seen to be on the winning side. Once two leaders have visibly high levels of support the tendency is of that to only attract others. Candidates can't stop MPs nominating them. Last time David Miliband urged some of his supporters lent a vote or two to get Diane Abbott on the ticket. I wonder if any will this time? The reality though is that if a Labour leader was elected who genuinely only was the first preference of about 25-30 MPs and had to be hauled over the nomination line through charitable nominations, that would be an utter disaster.
The pressure is on Liz Kendall's team at the moment to keep up with the front-runners. She needs Chuka backing her. Incidentally he was not near the 35 MPs needed. Everyone assumed he had them in his pocket before declaring but it does not seem the case. Chuka backing Kendall would give her a bit of momentum. She could do with Tristram Hunt supporting her too and not dilly-dallying. Kendall also needs to get win the support of the likes of Jon Cruddas to show political breadth. Shouldn't be impossible for her to get Cruddas' nomination. There's a bit of a 'blue labour' overlap between them, he rates her and is keen to keep the debate going for as long as possible.
Surely the issue is that Unions and the "Labour movement" have both become irrelevant in the last 30 years. Employees have decent workplace protections compared to the Edwardian and Georgian era when the Labour movement first came into being. Even compared to its peak in the 1960s and 70s the difference is stark. Our manufacturing as a proportion of GDP has fallen by two thirds, the number of manufacturing jobs has fallen by over half and those that remain tend to be value added or high tech rather than the dirty manufacturing jobs of the past.
We still have a massive working class, but they all tend to work for Tesco, or are bank cashiers and do other entry level service jobs. I don't see what Labour offer them that that the Tories don't offer them and few of them need the unions.
Until Labour can offer the Tesco worker a reason to vote Labour, they will be the party of the public sector paperwork generator and the non-working classes.
I don't think Burnham will be particularly helpful in reaching out to these groups who have thrown their lot in with the Tories and UKIP lately. He doesn't offer anything different to Ed.
The first part of your analysis is spot on. Not so sure about the second. I see very little evidence of working class support for the Tories; though there is clearly some evidence of working class support in some parts so the country for UKIP.
We need to see how the next couple of budgets pan out, but there is every chance that welfare benefits for those in work and on low wages are going to be absolutely hammered. Let's see how UKIP responds to that.
The Tories added 600,000 votes to their 2010 total, even with the rise of UKIP. They must have received a fairly large amount of support from the working poor, Labour making just 10 gains from them (four of them in London) shows that the Tories had to be making gains from private sector working class voters if Labour were making gains from Lib Dem voters returning to Labour.
Overall I would say the drift was LD > Lab, Lab > UKIP, LD > Con, Lab > Con, Con > UKIP in order of the swing size compared to last time.
The Tories also seem to have made big gains from the LDs, especially in the South West and SW London. Labour put on more votes than the Tories did, even though they lost a substantial number in Scotland.
According to the latest odds Liz Kendall is nearly the same price as Yvette Cooper. This is remarkable. Yvette remains the value pick, though Burnham's had a good 24 hours and campaign seems to be in very tidy shape. I've not seen a list of 35 Kendall backers - she needs to be highlighting some respected names soon. http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/next-labour-leader
At those prices -- and DYOR because the odds may have changed since I wrote this -- you could cover any four contenders, provided you could be sure they would be the four (or fewer) candidates left after nominations close. The trouble is, there are at least five more-or-less feasible players. I've taken the front two and will wait and see who joins them.
Southam Observer - agree about the need for broad voices and debate in the leadership contest. The trouble is that many MPs like to be on the winning side and also to be seen to be on the winning side. Once two leaders have visibly high levels of support the tendency is of that to only attract others. Candidates can't stop MPs nominating them. Last time David Miliband urged some of his supporters lent a vote or two to get Diane Abbott on the ticket. I wonder if any will this time? The reality though is that if a Labour leader was elected who genuinely only was the first preference of about 25-30 MPs and had to be hauled over the nomination line through charitable nominations, that would be an utter disaster.
The pressure is on Liz Kendall's team at the moment to keep up with the front-runners. She needs Chuka backing her. Incidentally he was not near the 35 MPs needed. Everyone assumed he had them in his pocket before declaring but it does not seem the case. Chuka backing Kendall would give her a bit of momentum. She could do with Tristram Hunt supporting her too and not dilly-dallying. Kendall also needs to get win the support of the likes of Jon Cruddas to show political breadth. Shouldn't be impossible for her to get Cruddas' nomination. There's a bit of a 'blue labour' overlap between them, he rates her and is keen to keep the debate going for as long as possible.
Labour MPs need to think of how the wider world is watching this. It is clear that the right wing media is intent on portraying Burnham as the McCluskey candidate and that the BBC and other broadcasters are now picking up on this as a theme. It is, of course, ridiculous, but why feed the narrative when it is not necessary to do so?
A Labour party in which someone like Kendall is not even able to take part in the contest is a Labour party that is going to lose all connection with relevance for millions and millions of voters across England. If the person asking the really hard questions is excluded then the comfort blanket will come down and that will be that until a another big defeat in 2020 and everyone realises they made a mistake not just with Ed but also with his successor.
It is becoming increasingly clear that the Stupid party in UK politics is Labour.
That front page Times story just confirms who would have been running the country had EDStone been elected and who runs the Labour Party in general. Remember the immortal words when the PLP dared to voice an opinion Len simply said "this is our party not theirs"
The people of this country were forewarned and voted accordingly. As long as they remain in denial of thi simple fact Labour are never going to achieve the majority they need and this newly elected leader will still be seen as the unions stooge.
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.
I wonder if it's hit home the threat that UKIP poses (or may pose, depending on how UKIP handles its own internal difficulties). After all, UKIP won only one seat, and that a former Tory one. UKIP may have been responsible for the loss of some seats to the Tories and for the failure to pick up more, but those aren't clearly visible results and those failures could equally be put down to Miliband's leadership. There are plenty of seats where UKIP finished second but relatively few where they were a close second to Labour. It is very easy to dismiss their challenge. By contrast, the threat the SNP poses is far more visible and, given the Holyrood elections in 2016, more immediate, though whether London Labour (by which I do mean the London membership, not shorthand for Labour central), are capable of (1) understanding and (2) addressing the problems in Scotland is another matter again.
If Burnham is clever he will want to avoid anything that looks like a coronation. It is clear that the right wing press are in the process of portraying him as the McCluskey candidate - even though, as Henry makes clear, his campaign managers are anything but McCluskey men. So, now that he has the nomination votes he needs he should be encouraging MPs to nominate other contenders. The last thing Labour needs is a non-election. Instead, it should be debating openly and honestly what has gone wrong and how it can be put right. That means Burnham (and Cooper) explaining why Kendall and Creagh (and maybe Hunt) have got it wrong and debating with them. You don't heal deep wounds by pretending they are not there.
I was going to join Labour last week, but decided against doing so until the leadership election had taken place. I want to see what Labour decides, and how the process runs. Right now, I feel very glad I made that decision. The comfort blanket would be a disaster and there is no point in getting involved in a party that prefers that to operating in the real world.
If he really was the McCluskey candidate then the sensible thing to do would be to appoint people on the right as the party (like, say Blair's former flatmate and a noted Blairite) to lead his campaign. Allows him to park his tanks on his opponents home turf and make the claim he is speaking for the whole party. Alternative would be a "core vote" strategy...
That front page Times story just confirms who would have been running the country had EDStone been elected and who runs the Labour Party in general. Remember the immortal words when the PLP dared to voice an opinion Len simply said "this is our party not theirs"
The people of this country were forewarned and voted accordingly. As long as they remain in denial of thi simple fact Labour are never going to achieve the majority they need and this newly elected leader will still be seen as the unions stooge.
There is a particular issue now because of the dominance of Unite. Previously, when there were four or five big unions, firstly it was harder to put an individual face to them and secondly, they often disagreed among themselves sufficiently to muddy the story. Now, it's Len's word that goes.
If I were a Tory strategist of a Brownite mentality, I'd be looking for policies that the public back but which will drive the unions into strike action, simply to drive a wedge between the public and Labour, or between the PLP and the unions.
The public sector middle class will sack the public sector working class first.
Or cut services.
True, if left to themselves. The key questions there are pensions and public pressure. I don't think it's sustainable to continue to cut front-line services while protecting terms and conditions that are well in excess of equivalent private-sector jobs.
Are they? I've known some private sector managers with substantial packages. Without seeing figures and on just anecdotal evidence, I'd suspect it is in the middle and bottom where public sector terms are better, mainly due to pension changes. The upper ranks in the private sector will have generous pensions, even more generous bonuses, and be eligible for "compensation for loss of office" if they do get the push.
And a lot of the public sector working class has already been privatised.
The public sector middle class will sack the public sector working class first.
Or cut services.
True, if left to themselves. The key questions there are pensions and public pressure. I don't think it's sustainable to continue to cut front-line services while protecting terms and conditions that are well in excess of equivalent private-sector jobs.
Are they? I've known some private sector managers with substantial packages. Without seeing figures and on just anecdotal evidence, I'd suspect it is in the middle and bottom where public sector terms are better, mainly due to pension changes. The upper ranks in the private sector will have generous pensions, even more generous bonuses, and be eligible for "compensation for loss of office" if they do get the push.
And a lot of the public sector working class has already been privatised.
Quite right, it is the middle and bottom who have the advantage - but they also make up the bulk of the paybill. Arguing that the Chief Executive isn't overpaid because s/he's only on £170k rather than the £500k they might get in the private sector is no response. I don't think that affects the original point about front-line cuts vs terms and conditions.
The last thing Labour needs is a non-election. Instead, it should be debating openly and honestly what has gone wrong and how it can be put right. That means Burnham (and Cooper) explaining why Kendall and Creagh (and maybe Hunt) have got it wrong and debating with them. You don't heal deep wounds by pretending they are not there. ... The comfort blanket would be a disaster and there is no point in getting involved in a party that prefers that to operating in the real world.
In spite of all the efforts of concealment by Burnham... everybody knows he is owned by The Clusky...lock stock and barrel...just like the last one. Labour must stop treating the electorate,especially their own, like idiots .
In spite of all the efforts of concealment by Burnham... everybody knows he is owned by The Clusky...lock stock and barrel...just like the last one. Labour must stop treating the electorate,especially their own, like idiots .
Let them "choose" him.
The electorate are not fools.
If Labour want to be out of power for another 10 years why stand in their way?
Labour MPs need to think of how the wider world is watching this. It is clear that the right wing media is intent on portraying Burnham as the McCluskey candidate and that the BBC and other broadcasters are now picking up on this as a theme. It is, of course, ridiculous, but why feed the narrative when it is not necessary to do so? .....
Southam, Jim Murphy is the one who named McCluskey after McCluskey attacked him and McCluskey is the one who has been quoted in the media. Blaming the media is just a distraction. McCluskey' s Unite have tentacles into 2/3 of Labour's MPS. A really shocking level of political influence.
In spite of all the efforts of concealment by Burnham... everybody knows he is owned by The Clusky...lock stock and barrel...just like the last one. Labour must stop treating the electorate,especially their own, like idiots .
"One who was at the parliamentary meeting on Monday said the room split between those who wanted to confront what had happened and those who feared what they might find. “It was as if it was divided in two, between those terrified of facing up to what happened to us and those who knew we would be finished if we didn’t.”"
"One shadow cabinet member said: “It’s awful. There is no one there I can vote for. There is no route out of this. It is a fucking disaster.”"
@Mr_Eugenides: Meanwhile, Keir Starmer appears to have ruled himself out of the running. Polly will be distraught.
What would Starmer offer other than his forename?
To be fair, he's a grown-up, which puts him well ahead of most of the field. Fortunately for me, given that I laid him at around 70.0, he's also grown-up enough to appreciate that at the moment he knows virtually nothing about politics. The idea that he could throw his hat into the ring when he hardly knows where the parliamentary loos are yet is risible.
Surely the issue is that Unions and the "Labour movement" have both become irrelevant in the last 30 years. Employees have decent workplace protections compared to the Edwardian and Georgian era when the Labour movement first came into being. Even compared to its peak in the 1960s and 70s the difference is stark. Our manufacturing as a proportion of GDP has fallen by two thirds, the number of manufacturing jobs has fallen by over half and those that remain tend to be value added or high tech rather than the dirty manufacturing jobs of the past.
We still have a massive working class, but they all tend to work for Tesco, or are bank cashiers and do other entry level service jobs. I don't see what Labour offer them that that the Tories don't offer them and few of them need the unions.
Until Labour can offer the Tesco worker a reason to vote Labour, they will be the party of the public sector paperwork generator and the non-working classes.
I don't think Burnham will be particularly helpful in reaching out to these groups who have thrown their lot in with the Tories and UKIP lately. He doesn't offer anything different to Ed.
@Mr_Eugenides: Meanwhile, Keir Starmer appears to have ruled himself out of the running. Polly will be distraught.
Do you have a link please?
Only the afternoon thread features Sir Keir and the greatest pun in the history of the internet that I need to update.
Michael Crick @MichaelLCrick 2h2 hours ago Keir Starmer scotches campaign, says flattered by efforts to enlist him, but "Labour needs someone with more political experience"
@Mr_Eugenides: Meanwhile, Keir Starmer appears to have ruled himself out of the running. Polly will be distraught.
Do you have a link please?
Only the afternoon thread features Sir Keir and the greatest pun in the history of the internet that I need to update.
Michael Crick @MichaelLCrick 2h2 hours ago Keir Starmer scotches campaign, says flattered by efforts to enlist him, but "Labour needs someone with more political experience"
Mr. Eagles, my sympathy. I was a bit disappointed when I realised the line "That's about as tempting an offer as a handjob from Edward Scissorhands" would have to be cut from Sir Edric's Temple [although the replacement may have ended up being even better].
Labour MPs need to think of how the wider world is watching this. It is clear that the right wing media is intent on portraying Burnham as the McCluskey candidate and that the BBC and other broadcasters are now picking up on this as a theme. It is, of course, ridiculous, but why feed the narrative when it is not necessary to do so? .....
Southam, Jim Murphy is the one who named McCluskey after McCluskey attacked him and McCluskey is the one who has been quoted in the media. Blaming the media is just a distraction. McCluskey' s Unite have tentacles into 2/3 of Labour's MPS. A really shocking level of political influence.
I ma not blaming the media. The media - print and broadcast - is doing what the media does. I am blaming Labour. It is Labour that is creating the story. That is why I called Labour the Stupid party.
"Mr Burnham started out as a Blairite... you'd never guess nowadays."
He's not all bad; he's still a Catholic and an ex-altar boy. And Tim Farron is a well known God-botherer too. So with Cameron a luke warm Proddy, the three major parties will be in safe hands.
It's a pity Mr Thompson isn't around to tease. Get the fires stoked and the hot irons out; nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!
Surely the issue is that Unions and the "Labour movement" have both become irrelevant in the last 30 years. Employees have decent workplace protections compared to the Edwardian and Georgian era when the Labour movement first came into being. Even compared to its peak in the 1960s and 70s the difference is stark. Our manufacturing as a proportion of GDP has fallen by two thirds, the number of manufacturing jobs has fallen by over half and those that remain tend to be value added or high tech rather than the dirty manufacturing jobs of the past.
We still have a massive working class, but they all tend to work for Tesco, or are bank cashiers and do other entry level service jobs. I don't see what Labour offer them that that the Tories don't offer them and few of them need the unions.
Until Labour can offer the Tesco worker a reason to vote Labour, they will be the party of the public sector paperwork generator and the non-working classes.
I don't think Burnham will be particularly helpful in reaching out to these groups who have thrown their lot in with the Tories and UKIP lately. He doesn't offer anything different to Ed.
LOL, let them eat cake
Let them eat multicultural outreach co-ordinators is the Labour equivalent.
The Labour Party... well, the clue is in the name. They are always going to be tied vitally to the unions, and those who don't like the unions won't like that, but I think they would struggle to propose an alternative source of funding for a centre-left party in Britain.
@Mr_Eugenides: Meanwhile, Keir Starmer appears to have ruled himself out of the running. Polly will be distraught.
What would Starmer offer other than his forename?
To be fair, he's a grown-up, which puts him well ahead of most of the field. Fortunately for me, given that I laid him at around 70.0, he's also grown-up enough to appreciate that at the moment he knows virtually nothing about politics. The idea that he could throw his hat into the ring when he hardly knows where the parliamentary loos are yet is risible.
I suspect he's far too grown up for the moment. We know he can do challenge. We know he has principles. We have no idea that he can do politics (he can certainly be political but that's rather different from the nuts and bolts that leaders have to deal with). We also know precious little about the sort of policies that the Labour leadership election will be decided on, though presumably he could flesh that out quickly enough.
But he won't and can't win. Labour leadership elections, far more than those of the Tories or Lib Dems, are about gathering support from big party players early on. Starmer has none so far and it's too late in the day to begin.
Comments
Meanwhile Chukas pissing it up at one of the most exclusive clubs in London with eye watering prices the likes of which nearly all people could never afford. It's always the actions Labour and the left in general take which don't match the words and thus makes the words just seem a way of of scoring against their opponents rather than anything meaningful. They treat their supporters with contempt as they always do and then wonder why they lose. Would have been better if he pitched up at a food bank and the expensive cognac and steaks into the basket while donating the membership to shelter or similar.
Basically they are just a bunch of hyocritical chancers who really don't give a flying feck about anyone but themselves. That is why they lost and that is why Chuka knew his opportunity was going to be dogged by the hypocritical actions he has engaged in.
Marr tying him in knots about his changed stance on the EU referendum.
"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."
I agree, except for Glasgow - Scotland is on its way out of the UK, so seats there will no longer matter from a Westminster perspective.
A close colleague of mine was the unsuccessful Labour candidate for a Mid English marginal. He did better than most in Middle England and reduced the deficit vs Con with a swing of over 2% to Lab. He told me that the local council elections conducted simultaneously gave a clue as to where the election was lost. Labour support held up in the poorest wards, but was below that needed in more affluent suburbs of the town. Extensive canvassing over the past 2 years had not been as effective as hoped.
The Stafford Crisis was nothing to do with Burnham, but everything to do with New Labour's health service reforms.
Absolutely no-one. Wales is massively under-represented anyhow at Oxbridge, and Aberavon will be right at the bottom of the heap. (And some of the blame for that lies with Welsh Labour who run education in Wales).
My uncle ran a shop in Sandlands in Aberavon.
I remember visiting it is a child. It was the first time I encountered really, really shocking poverty. The place is still as poor today (although my uncle’s shop is now a Chinese Takeway).
Almost the last person who should represent Aberavon is Stephen Kinnock, a wealthy man who has a home in Denmark. But, Labour chose him, Labour’s shame.
The Stafford Crisis was nothing to do with Burnham, but everything to do with New Labour's health service reforms.
http://www.nursingtimes.net/home/francis-report/francis-report-timeline-of-mid-staffs-disaster/5054291.article http://www.bbc.com/news/health-21244190
http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/commons/andy-burnham/1427
To say Burnham was responsible for the Mid Staffs scandal is stretching it more than somewhat.
So if you tinker with events the outcome will always be the same? Had someone waited a day before/after that faitful event history would have not changed (in the the Time-Space-Continniumn) a single iota?
Glass is pretty clear: Sadly - like most silicates - it is a liquid and not a solid.....
Shaun Woodward - or his butler - are entirely responsible for the Tory 2015 victory. His (or their) cunning plan to undermine England's finances (using Scots Agent provocateur knumbskulls) were a strategic plan to bannish Labour from - Scotland, then England - and he/they were in cohort with 'A bloke in a White Suit'.
End result: Cammers and Ozzie! What a master-plan.
:clear-as-mud;MEDIC!!!:
I think that the political blame for Stafford goes much wider than Burnham, and the worst happened under other regimes, Patricia Hewitt and Alan Johnson in particular. It was symptomatic of the whole approach to targets under New Labour.
http://www.parliament.uk/biographies/commons/andy-burnham/1427
To say Burnham was responsible for the Mid Staffs scandal is stretching it more than somewhat.
To say he was responsible for the events at the hospital is possibly stretching things a little. To say he was responsible for the coverup and trying to bury the enquiry into the scandal when he was SoS for Health is quite reasonable.
Best option in my opinion would be Yvette Cooper, as I think she would perform very well against Cameron and I don't think there are many attack options available for the Tories. Cameron is not very good at dealing with Women and I think she would get under his skin, causing him to respond badly.
Labour has become less of a Party, more a collection of politicians not very good at poliltics.
Especially as they were unable to predict the 2015 general election a week beforehand.
All very 1992.
I think that the political blame for Stafford goes much wider than Burnham, and the worst happened under other regimes, Patricia Hewitt and Alan Johnson in particular. It was symptomatic of the whole approach to targets under New Labour.
The political blame certainly goes wider than just Burnham, but he was in charge of the department when it tried to cover up the report into 1200 deaths. Because it looked bad and criticised his beloved NHS, he would rather bury the report than have the issues publicly discussed.
"Amazing how many people already know the result of the 2020 general election.
Especially as they were unable to predict the 2015 general election a week beforehand.
All very 1992."
You failed dismally in your forecasts. Others didn't.
You would fail a logic exam. :-)
http://politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2009/04/21/is-truelabour-right-to-worry-about-unite/#comments
"I certainly had not appreciated the scale of UNITE’s influence over the party – though almost all discussions relating to Labour at the moment seem to have a UNITE angle. "
6 years on, UNITE now have tentacles in 2/3 of Labour's MPs.
Shocked!
Perhaps you'd like to show me those forecasts you claim I failed so dismally at.
Or you could check with antifrank about my prediction that UKIP would hurt Labour far more than the Conservatives and that would be especially true in constituencies like Sherwood.
Or you could ask Richard Nabavi about the 9/2 Conservatives to win Elemt & Rothwell @ Paddy Power I recommended to him.
Or my prediction that London and the North-West would be the best Labour areas but that Labour would only gain Dewsbury from the Conservatives in Yorkshire.
Or my amazement that Labour supporters here prematurely celebrating victory on the day before the election.
For a party that needs to reach out to large tranches of people with little Union contact, let alone membership, this is potentially disastrous but a strong leader could overcome these difficulties wherever they start from. It is just that none of those on the Union approved list look particularly strong.
To put it in perspective Labour are going to need to win over something like 1m people who voted Tory this time unless they make a recovery in Scotland, something that looks even less likely following this week's shenanigans. I think Kendall is the only one who has even the potential to do that and she is of course very far from the finished article. If she does blocked at the nomination stage Labour will be in deep trouble.
We still have a massive working class, but they all tend to work for Tesco, or are bank cashiers and do other entry level service jobs. I don't see what Labour offer them that that the Tories don't offer them and few of them need the unions.
Until Labour can offer the Tesco worker a reason to vote Labour, they will be the party of the public sector paperwork generator and the non-working classes.
I don't think Burnham will be particularly helpful in reaching out to these groups who have thrown their lot in with the Tories and UKIP lately. He doesn't offer anything different to Ed.
If you make specific predictions you then try to fit the evidence into backing them up rather than looking at the data impartially.
And its vital when betting to look at things as impartially as possible.
Turning to SLAB, the behind the scenes story around Murphy trying to cling to power is very unedifying:
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/scottish-politics/jim-murphy-the-humbling-of-a-leader.126258499
He seems to have spent the last 10 days trying to push water up hill and running around trying to "persuade" everybody to support him. I think there is real risk that Murphy will now try and take as many people down with him as possible, his true character is now shining through. If Jim truly cared about SLAB he should have resigned on 8th May, this death of a thousand cuts approach could well send SLAB below the 20% support level.
And less metropolitan though I suspect his 'Scouse image' might have drawbacks.
We need to see how the next couple of budgets pan out, but there is every chance that welfare benefits for those in work and on low wages are going to be absolutely hammered. Let's see how UKIP responds to that.
He starts by explaining how corrupt we used to be: "Power was inherited or bought..." He then goes on to acknowledge, "We no longer have aristocratic courts and inherited offices" (clearly not au fait with the way the Labour party works) but then claims in the same sentence that "our democracies are increasingly captured by a ruling class that seeks to perpetuate its privileges. Our democratic systems, once thought inviolable have, in the apt word used by the political scientist Francis Fukuyama, "decayed." "
This inability to achieve consistency and coherence from the start to the end of a single sentence is truly troubling. As is the thought that anyone's intellectual curiosity was so diminished as to think someone capable of such incoherence was actually worth listening to.
I have always adhered to the view that someone cannot be as consistently lucky as Cameron without being a lot brighter than he lets on. Perhaps Mr Hilton was a part of the camouflage.
Or cut services.
I was going to join Labour last week, but decided against doing so until the leadership election had taken place. I want to see what Labour decides, and how the process runs. Right now, I feel very glad I made that decision. The comfort blanket would be a disaster and there is no point in getting involved in a party that prefers that to operating in the real world.
# I placed a nice bet with 'William Hill' in 01/12 that returned me a bonus at 13/8 (as possted at the time), and
# I post less than most on here; but am still not claiming victory.
2010-betting was a disaster: People, post your thoughts but don't blame others for your faults when you are wrong.
:can-junior-recover-the-disqus-archives:
Or cut services."
Tory scum!
Er......um.......
Overall I would say the drift was LD > Lab, Lab > UKIP, LD > Con, Lab > Con, Con > UKIP in order of the swing size compared to last time.
SELL, SELL, SELL !!!
The "much lower" stat is 21% based on 2010 figures - I can quite imagine that membership composition has changed materially under Ed.
The pressure is on Liz Kendall's team at the moment to keep up with the front-runners. She needs Chuka backing her. Incidentally he was not near the 35 MPs needed. Everyone assumed he had them in his pocket before declaring but it does not seem the case. Chuka backing Kendall would give her a bit of momentum. She could do with Tristram Hunt supporting her too and not dilly-dallying. Kendall also needs to get win the support of the likes of Jon Cruddas to show political breadth. Shouldn't be impossible for her to get Cruddas' nomination. There's a bit of a 'blue labour' overlap between them, he rates her and is keen to keep the debate going for as long as possible.
A Labour party in which someone like Kendall is not even able to take part in the contest is a Labour party that is going to lose all connection with relevance for millions and millions of voters across England. If the person asking the really hard questions is excluded then the comfort blanket will come down and that will be that until a another big defeat in 2020 and everyone realises they made a mistake not just with Ed but also with his successor.
It is becoming increasingly clear that the Stupid party in UK politics is Labour.
The people of this country were forewarned and voted accordingly. As long as they remain in denial of thi simple fact Labour are never going to achieve the majority they need and this newly elected leader will still be seen as the unions stooge.
If I were a Tory strategist of a Brownite mentality, I'd be looking for policies that the public back but which will drive the unions into strike action, simply to drive a wedge between the public and Labour, or between the PLP and the unions.
And a lot of the public sector working class has already been privatised.
The electorate are not fools.
If Labour want to be out of power for another 10 years why stand in their way?
https://youtu.be/FPftE8Uy8g8
Most of it is the same. Hardly the change candidate!
"One shadow cabinet member said: “It’s awful. There is no one there I can vote for. There is no route out of this. It is a fucking disaster.”"
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/16/labour-great-crisis-ever
Only the afternoon thread features Sir Keir and the greatest pun in the history of the internet that I need to update.
Keir Starmer scotches campaign, says flattered by efforts to enlist him, but "Labour needs someone with more political experience"
Bugger, needs to revise the afternoon piece.
"Mr Burnham started out as a Blairite... you'd never guess nowadays."
He's not all bad; he's still a Catholic and an ex-altar boy. And Tim Farron is a well known God-botherer too. So with Cameron a luke warm Proddy, the three major parties will be in safe hands.
It's a pity Mr Thompson isn't around to tease. Get the fires stoked and the hot irons out; nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!
But he won't and can't win. Labour leadership elections, far more than those of the Tories or Lib Dems, are about gathering support from big party players early on. Starmer has none so far and it's too late in the day to begin.