Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Henry G Manson’s view remains: Yvette Cooper is the value
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Henry G Manson’s view remains: Yvette Cooper is the value bet
“It’s Andy’s the lose, right?” The bookmakers have Andy Burnham odds on to be the next Labour leader but I’m just not convinced. To be fair to Andy his campaign is considerably better than in 2010 and he has an impressive array of support from across the party.
0
Comments
No he wasn't. There was no first-round winner in the last leadership election, which is why it went to a second round (and further rounds).
Labour's dilemna is that they're both very close to, and very far from, power. A gain of 35 seats from the Conservatives would enable them to form a minority government, with backing from other left-wing parties. As against that, 31% is a very poor vote share, and a majority of voters backed right wing parties, for the first time since 1935.
I fear many in Labour do not understand the difference.
Edit- in saying that it would be interesting if the fragrant Yvette won and Kendal won through for deputy. Very interesting indeed.
http://privatewww.essex.ac.uk/~tquinn/leadership_election_rules.htm
I still think Snowflake and Kendall could be an interesting ticket.
It does occur if a deputy is picked when a leader is in place, or vice versa. I guess if there was a male deputy leader, there would have to be a female leader selected, unless the deputy stands down.
It's a stupid mess.
I note from that article in 2011 that Cooper balls backed the idea. As did Jowell ..... (Not though Tessa would remember of course.)
Remove the clause in the Equalities Act that Hattie introduced to make sex discrimination legal in the Labour Party.
Among younger men, support for the Conservatives and UKIP runs very high, at 49% for men aged 30-49, only dropping to 44% among the youngest age cohort. But, it's far lower among women, at 42% and 36% respectively.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/11655253/Nigel-Farage-Let-me-lead-the-out-campaign-in-the-EU-referendum.html
Deputy leadership runners are, in alphabetical order: Rushanara Ali, Ben Bradshaw, Stella Creasy, Angela Eagle, Caroline Flint, John Healey and Tom Watson.
1. She is married to Ed Balls. For a party looking to move on from 2008 this is a serious problem that she is yet to address. How can she?
2. She lacks TV presence. In a presidential campaign, either for leader or PM, this is a weakness. For a party looking for a bit of charisma after Ed, this is a problem.
If she had neither of these issues then Henry would be right for all the reasons he points out.
The law is very explicit that discrimination in political parties on candidate selection is only allowed to be sex discrimination.
Genuine question.
Thankfully (from Labour's point of view) that will not be a problem for the election again and it is this that the membership should really be focussing on: which of the candidates is going to make Labour most competitive where they want to win seats?
The general failure to recover the 2010 losses to the Tories in 2015 shows the problem. Labour did well in the north east and London where they had very little to gain, ok in the NW and poorly in the midlands and south where they actually went backwards. So they need a leader that is going to win in those areas.
Wherever her constituency is I think Cooper is an EM II. She is another north London intellectual type who will appeal to the same groups as Ed did. This is her biggest problem: she needs to show she can reach out beyond such groups. So far she comes across as cool, remote, intellectual and fairly seriously lacking in empathy.
Andy does empathy in spades but he needs to show he can appeal where Labour need to win seats, not just where they weigh their majorities.
Kendall has the potential to reach out much more where Labour needs to win but it is only potential. I agree with Henry she is not shinning in the way young Blair did (mind you that is an unfairly high bar).
It is not a stellar field. I can see Labour selecting a woman only to be trumped again when Javid becomes the next Tory leader.
I suspect one can grow into these things!
I was simply musing had it turned out that way? it would be, or have been an interesting choice enabling a potential foot either side of the centre ground area. Stella Creasy might just achieve the same objective.
Alternatively never underestimate Labour and them choosing the Corbyn / Watson combination. Remember these were the same people that coronated Brown.
"He haven't gone away you know"
I really don't think Labour show any real sign of addressing how awfully did in the election. I wonder just how much of their, very small vote increase went into seats where they already have very big majorities and how little into the kind of seats they need to win. I suspect the UKIP pressure on them in their heartlands could continue to be a problem while they fade as a serious threat to the more eurosceptic Tory party. I see little prospect of a revival in Scotland - the Tories never have and have flatlined at around 15-20%.
The early signs of their opposition strategy with the continued hostility to the 'cuts' - indicates that for them the GE simply didn't happen. The only one really saying the right things is Kendall and I doubt if the party will elect her. Indeed she could create schism - as she is clearly no Tony Blair.
Women are more likely to vote Labour.
Public sector workers are more likely to be women.
http://www.rotherhamccg.nhs.uk/Downloads/Equality Docs/GENDER_In_NHS_Infographic_FINAL.pdf
http://www.islington.gov.uk/publicrecords/library/Community-and-living/Information/Factsheets/2011-2012/(2012-03-03)-Islington's-Workforce-Charts.pdf
Some of those numbers would provoke diversity action plans if men were as disproportionately represented.
They need a few adults to take the lead, such as Carswell and Hannan. Both of whom, even if you don't agree with them, can actually put forward a well reasoned case, in a sensible way. Farage, is a bar room bore who couldn't even win over enough people to win a Westminster, seat.
TV Chef?
Interesting piece, Mr. Manson. I wonder how Labour's apparently London-centric nature affects things.
Farage leading 'out' makes sense from his point of view. Not only does it further inflate his massive ego, but he knows that with him leading 'out' will lose. Since a win for out will damage the party he leads, it makes sense that he kyboshes the campaign as much as possible.
After all, many of UKIP's supporters won't be blaming him for the loss; they'll be mad at the EU that 'stole' the campaign in some yet-to-be-determined way.
As for Labour revival in Scotland - you can't really compare their situation with the Conservatives. Scotland, in many ways is the reverse of England - while it can be argued England shifts more to the Right, Scotland is a more centre-left country. As such, while it's a difficult for the Conservatives - a party significantly to the Right (looking at Scotland's political spectrum,) to really 'revive', Labour at some point probably will. The question is, to what extent can Labour recover in Scotland? The SNP won't be popular forever, but Labour is unlikely to ever *dominate* Scottish politics in the way it used to.
As for whether Labour ready to address its issues, that is a more difficult issue to read. It's quite early days, especially into the leadership election. Right now, in the main PB seems to get their insight into Labour voters, from a very select demographic of Guardian commentators, and those on Twitter. The equivalent, would be me judging Tory voters on the basis of the DM and Telegraph comments section. In short, those with more 'extreme' political views tend to shout the loudest and dominate conversation online. As I credit Labour grassroots, while being on the centre-left of politics, with not being extremists (they did vote for D Miliband in 2010, after all) I think we'll have to wait and see as to who they gravitate towards.
Really at this moment in time, the most striking thing to me isn't that Labour want to go to the left, or go to the Right, or keep 'Milibandism' etc, but that Labour lack a general direction. They lack a clear idea as to what the Labour party is 'for'. And until we see how this leadership election develops, and who Labour elect we probably won't get an answer to that question. Which is crucial for understanding whether Labour 'get' their problems or not.
His point that the No side need to start campaigning ASAP is surely correct.
What does puzzle me about Burnham and Cooper is why they think that they have outstanding Leadership abilities?
Could anyone see them at the top of a FTSE 100 Company?
What about as an Executive Director in a FTSE100?
No? What about as the Head of a large department in a FTSE100? Maybe, but not definite. As with Ed Miliband we have a couple of people that lack Leadership qualities.
The claim about Labour having "several women high in the Party, and in Cabinets long before the Tories (or Libs IIRC) had any there or thereabouts" is, however, inaccurate.
Labour had one female minister who served in both the 1924 and in 1929-31 governments (in the cabinet in the MacDonald's second ministry), and a second who was a junior minister in the 1929-31 one.
The Conservatives also appointed their first female minister in 1924 although it did take until 1953 before one broke into the cabinet.
Which party has had more women in government has tended to move with which has had more time in office. For example, at 1964, the Tories had had eight female ministers to Labour's six. By 1979, Labour was well ahead. By 1997, the Tories were again.
It's true that the Liberals / Lib Dems didn't supply a woman minister until 2010 and have yet to have one in the cabinet but then they've had very limited opportunity to do so before then given their brief periods in office in the early 1930s and during the war, and that Megan Lloyd George was their sole female member (which is partly their fault for not selecting more women but is more reflective of the low number of Liberals returned rather than being unreflective of male dominance).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-32993861
For Burnham to seize the moment, he now needs to sign up as many MPs as possible and, consequently, making it appear that any other candidate would struggle to establish their authority in Westminster if elected. However, doing so will almost certainly mean denying activists as broad a choice as they might like so it's a risk if he stops someone from standing but doesn't then gain that sufficient momentum.
My only question would be do Labour members really see Burnham and health together as a positive? As someone who's not involved with any particular party, I thought that Miliband's appointment of him in that role after the Stafford debacle was the weakest appointment he made, even more so than Balls or Johnson in the SCoE roles.
Put simply, a left-wing Out campaigner may use very different arguments from a right-wing one. They may even be contradictory but that won't matter if they're targeted at different groups and owe no allegiance to each other. What matters is getting their message across to those who are receptive to it. In that sense, Out has an easier task than In as In will be campaigning on Cameron's proposals and there are always more directions to attack a proposal from than from which to defend it.
Combining two topics from this thread, both sides also need relatively high-profile women in their campaign. In 1975, In had Margaret Thatcher and Out had Barbara Castle. Where are today's equivalents?
For a small donation they will write your name on the tail of the 'car' and send you updates every couple of weeks about the project's progression.
Once the negotiations are complete there will be people moving from one side to the other, and bringing practical rather than ideological arguments to the table, both to their own side and the general public.
The political leader of the campaign will have to be someone who can bring all supporters of the cause together rather than have them argue with each other. In this respect Alastair Darling was a good choice for the Scottish No campaign. A Conservative that changes his or her mind and moves to Out after the negotiations would probably be good in this role.
All parties and groupings would also do well to look at the work of Mr Messina and friends in data analysis. This is the new politics and isn't going to go away any time soon. Those who can best identify supporters and get them out on the day will undoubtedly win. If I were Dan Hannan I would be beating his door down now before the negotiations finish and the In campaign know what they are campaigning for and start to organise.
I am not convinced that Cooper is in the centre of the 3 serious contenders politically. She is the one most adamant that Labour did not overspend in the Brown years. It is not just being married to Balls that prevents her addressing this, she was Chief Sec to the Treasury herself 2008-2009 at the height of the crash. That is a tough legacy to deal with, much tougher than her poor performance at Housing.
On the Gender issue, it is equally likely for this to benefit Liz Kendall as Yvette.
I've already got totally confused about what a Yes vote would mean - after the SIndy campaign I'm assuming it means Leave The EU, but perhaps it's the opposite and it means Yes Stay In The EU.
Until it's clear who is arguing for what end position, the campaigns are in serious PR trouble.
Otherwise the media will choose who they go to for a comment on topics individually, and if they consistently turn to one strand of anti-Europeanism that individual will become the de facto face of the campaign and, I suspect, create a marmite effect
http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2015/05/31/conservative-voters-arent-evil-they-arent-bad-people-and-we-need-to-listen-to-why-they-rejected-us/
Interested to see what In come up with as a positive argument for the EU, scaremongering won't work.
The concessions I expect Cameron won't get will be decisive, most people seem open to persuasion and are waiting to see what happens with negotiations.
Without them, it's rather hard for In to campaign much beyond the core vote - and that isn't going to achieve much of anything for either side of the argument.
Was talking to a few Labour friends recently and I get the feeling the unions "endorsing" Burnham and then trying to propel Corbyn onto the ballot is all part of them getting Yvette elected, unifying then splitting the leftist vote within Labour.
Ditto on the In campaign. The Greens and SNP are not going to be campaigning on the same platform as Cameron (assuming he advocates In - I am not convinced that he will).
I'd just like to comment on the staggeringly inaccurate Telegraph article on Greece and the IMF today by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard. Please ignore what he has written: he is either unacquainted with any of the players involved in this saga, or he is being deliberately misleading.
When SYRIZA was elected at the beginning of this year, it was based on a simply promise: austerity could be ended and Greece could remain a part of the Euro. The Greek negotiating team was went to the IMF and to the Eurozone capitals and said "the Greek people have spoken, and they wish to end austerity and remain in the Euro. And you need to respect the wishes of the Greek people. Not only that, but if Greece crashes out of the Euro, it will be as much of a disaster for Europe as for Greece."
The overwhelming desire of most of the Eurozone heads of government - and particularly Angela Merkel - was to keep Greece in the Eurozone, because they feared that Tsipiras was right, and that Grexit could lead to the break-up of the whole Euro.
Greece asked for haircuts to its debt. The Eurozone member states said - more or less - "straight haircuts are not possible. however, what we can offer is interest rate reductions and maturity extensions." As negotiations progressed, this offer was extended further: Greek bonds would be bought as part of the QE programme, the Greeks were offered repayments linked to GDP growth, and a partial holiday on interest payments. The effect of this was to reduce the real value of Greece's debts from, depending on who you speak to, 170% of GDP to somewhere in the 80 to 100% range.
However, this largess did not come without conditions. Both the IMF and EU/ECB loan packages were based around financial help in return for reforms. This meant Greece needed to free up its labour market, increase the age at which civil servants retired, privatise state assets, and run a certain primary budget surplus. These conditions were not unusual by the standards of previous IMF bailouts. In fact, there was the feeling that Greece was getting a better than normal deal because of concerns about a potential collapse of the Eurozone.
The current hold-up on an agreement being reached between the EU/ECB/the IMF and Greece is one solely caused by the IMF. The IMF wants to see Greek VAT reform. SYRIZA rightly thinks this will cause pain to poorer Greeks. (Although, it should be noted, it would also collect a lot of revenue from tourists to Greece. And it would go some way to solving the issue that Greece collects less tax, as a proportion of GDP, from its citizens as the Italians or the French.)
SYRIZA is - from what I understand - quite split right now. On Monday or Tuesday of this week there was a meeting of its MPs to discuss the offer. By around 80 to 69 votes, it was rejected. (I don't know whether Tsipiras was personally in favour or not.)
The Greek government wants the IMF to fold. It is therefore choosing to raise the stakes with them by witholding (this is not a default yet, technically) principle payments until the end of this month. SYRIZA hopes that Legarde will be so concerned about the potential for Greece to default on IMF debts on her watch that it will fold and give up on VAT reform.
I think - and this is my personal view - that the Greek government feels emboldened by the successes it has had so far. It feels it has wrung out far more concessions than people thought it would, and it feels that, with the support of Putin, it has the IMF over a barrel.
But this may well all end very badly. A policy decision by the ECB limiting the ability of Greek banks to treat government bonds as riskless assets would inevitably result in capital controls in Greece (to stop further deposit flight). This would no doubt tip the economy further into recession, and would force a resolution. Tsipiras would - I suspect - roll the dice again on the assumption that the Europeans and the IMF would fold. An optimistic assumption.
I particularly liked:
"You know what would be in Labour’s interests? To finally end this charade. Stop pretending people like Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell and Owen Jones have anything at all constructive to contribute to how the Labour party actually wins general elections. Say from the outset “sorry, we’re not interested in being a glorified protest movement any more. You’ve had your fun. Now run along and play with Russell Brand ”.
Practical and successful politics needs a choice. Cameron is dominant but the loons on the right of the Tories have not all left for UKIP or gone away either. If there is no significant opposition out of the government to keep people focussed it will come from inside. The Tories need a Labour party keeping them honest as much as Labour needs a potential winner.
Not our Gasman I presume!
"How will Lab deal with the LBGTIQXYZ spectrum ?"
I get the lettuce, bacon and tomato bit but the rest needs some explanation.
XYZ are the ones I add for those that are about to be invented / identified.
I missed out Pansexual (interested in any thing that moves).
I'm sure there are some more, somewhere. Once you decide that categories are immutable and orientation is discovered not developed, you enter an ever descending spiral of fragmentation.
(1) He wants to safeguard access to single market, completing and deepening it in services and the digital economy as making it competitive.
(2) Continue the drive to global free trade with US, Japan and Asia - including with Brazil, China, and India - e.g TTIP
(3) He wants further liberalisation of the EU labour markets
(4) He wants more national vetoes by national parliaments
(5) He wants a mechanism for national level regulation rather than European
Fundamentally, he wants to push "Single market" rather than "Single currency". The government is trying to frame the whole renegotiation in terms of addressing the long-term challenges of a euro/non euro split to ensure UK not constantly outmanoeuvred or outvoted by the eurozone acting as a block on key issues.
To that end, he will want:
(a) abandon ever closer union
(b) double-majority for non-euro states and euro states
(c) Turn the "yellow-card" (ask commission to reconsider) into red-card veto by national parliaments (permanently block) on future legislation
(d) I.e. double-lock from QMV in Council to triple involving national parliaments (as well as commission)
On freedom of movement, my understanding is he originally wanted to negotiate a 75k annual cap on EU migrants, that could be declared 'in force' in times of very high immigration (which would have been very popular here) but Merkel told him where to go. So, now, he's limiting it to benefits entitlements for 4 years.
None of that addresses the priorities of the "Fresh Start" group of eurosceptic Conservative backbenchers who broadly want:
- repatriation of all employment /social law
- complete opt-out from policing/criminal justice
- radical reform of regional policy (decentralised)
- opt-out from ECHR
- limits on free movement
I will be voting Out.
The complete unreality of all the negotiations with Greece since 2010 has always been that it was ever going to be able to pay its way out of this without massive debt forgiveness. What was done left them in a position that made the current crisis absolutely inevitable. While interest rate cuts and "holidays" are some help Greece needs a major default.
It would have had that major default in 2010 but for the Euro membership which forced people to pretend it was something else somehow compatible with Euro membership. This made the scale too small.
The VAT issue is key because the Greeks simply don't pay income taxes and seems to have no interest in bringing administration into place to make sure that they do. The government needs a more reliable source of revenue to meet its obligations.
Where I do disagree with AEP is that there is a viable alternative to austerity for a government which is spending more than it can ingather and has run out of credit. The idea that governments have a right to run deficits without a viable plan for repayment is pernicious and the source of so many of our problems, not just in Greece.
Dance off Balls vs Cable vs Hunt.
Doing the Gangnam Style.
Or Strictly?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3112992/Hounded-SNP-hate-mob-weeks-lonely-death-Charles-Kennedy-endured-vile-campaign-bullying-abuse-separatist-fanatics-deeply-wounded-vulnerable-man.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3110984/A-day-life-squirrel-Cheeky-rodent-steals-GoPro-takes-adventure-trees-Montreal.html#v-4275223970001
I know a few pb.com readers live in and around the West Midlands. Coventry University have organised their latest lecture looking at the General Election from the perspective of young voters. It is free to attend, but you must register and it takes place on 10th June - http://www.coventry.ac.uk/research/research-directories/research-events/2015/event-the-big-question/
I think I could live with the EEA, but where ever we go the EU will not go away and outside we have no votes and no say at all in protecting ourselves against ever closer union. The so called trade deals the numpty Farage blathers on about will still mean the single market and it's associates rules. Leaving the EU will still mean being beholden to it, will still mean an act of supplication to agree to relate to it.
Let's see how the negotiations pan out, you have already written Dave off (for the umpteenth time), if an orbit for us around the eurozone group does not work then the EEA relationship is fine by me.
But let's none of us be fools, OUT would never satisfy the nutjobs, only stopping the world to get off will ever do that. Well, that and evermore crass nativism.