Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Don Brind’s question for the LAB 4: How will you get the b
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Don Brind’s question for the LAB 4: How will you get the better of Osborne in 2020?
For Labour supporters the worst moment of the General Election campaign came a week ahead of polling day when Ed Miliband was ambushed by Tory activists in the BBC Question Time audience and left floundering over whether the Labour government spending had been too high.
0
Comments
Burnham - 31
Corbyn - 26
Cooper - 24
Kendall - 4
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/14fJtyTh2RTSJdobOwYcU8-GQhFIsc1TYy86y369QdXc/edit?pli=1#gid=0
We may soon have to start seriously considering the prospect of Corbyn making the final two.
The tax credit system was - in my view - excessively generous (and that's why Brown demanded it be treated as negative income tax revenues rather than welfare payments) precisely to try to disguise the true level of government spending.
Labour has only two choices: (a) to defend the system and the current/higher level of spending; or (b) to accept that spending was excessive and come up with a proposal on how they would spend a reduced pot differently to protect those groups that they see as more deserving.
Just reflexively saying "this is bad" doesn't address the fundamental challenge that Labour has: that the GBP perceives them as profligate with public money
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/11728951/Giant-heart-spotted-on-Pluto-in-closest-ever-pictures-of-dwarf-planet.html
But unless you beat your rival you don't get to take on your opponent.
In any case, Osborne won't lead the Tories into 2020, though as likely election and political strategist, his will still be the campaign (if not the opponent) to beat.
"Establishing a narrative." There in a nutshell is Labour's problem.
Utter denial of just how inept their economic management has been. Not just 1997 - 2010, but every time they gain power.
Nothing needed "establishing". It was front and back of voters' perception of how Labour had been in office - and how it would be again. Labour went naked into the 2015 election as regards a viable economic offer. It had no answer to what to do in an era - likely to be a very extended era - of a shrinking public sector. Now their failure to show how to do the basics of government follows them around like the stench of political death.
Sorry, but Labour need to get stop this - they did leave a mess. The mistake Labour made was pretending that they didn't. What they should have done is pointed out that the Tories supported the bank bailouts and that even if Labour had been running a surplus it wouldn't have made much difference. They should then have argued for tax rises in addition to spending cuts being put forward by the Tories.
Instead of arguing that the Tories were cutting too fast they should have been holding Osborne to account on his promise to get rid of the deficit by 2015. Instead, when we got to the election and Osborne had missed his target massively, not even Labour were shameless enough to pretend that they thought that this mattered given what they had been arguing for the previous five years.
"Burnham said 'The biggest slap in the face for young people in this budget is what George Osborne has done on pay. His flagship proposal of a national living wage only kicks in at 25, but his cuts to tax credits affect people of all ages.'"
This shows what an idiot Burnham is. The under 25s should be grateful that they can undercut the older workforce. The hardest thing is getting a job in the first place and this will give under 25s a better chance of getting a job and getting some experience.
The record for youth unemployment is much better than it was but still nothing like as good. The fact that younger people are cheaper to employ gives them a much better opportunity to get into the jobs market. We have this already in the current NMW which has different levels below 18, between 18 and 24 and 25 and over so it is nothing new although the differentials will be greater.
Does Burnham simply not know this or is he choosing to ignore the problem of youth unemployment to try and make some political point? It is this refusal to engage with the problems of the real world that ultimately makes Labour unelectable. I have chosen Burnham but the same sort of criticisms could be made of both Cooper (whose critique is in fact no more than a statement of the obvious: if you cut a benefit that is aimed in large part at single parents women will disproportionately suffer) and Kendall (who is effectively saying Osborne has gone far further than Labour ever did but it is not far enough).
None of them have shown any real vision. Osborne has not done this out of compassion or generosity, he has done this because ultimately he wishes to significantly reduce the role and intervention of the State in the labour market by reducing the subsidies that are currently available for cheap labour at the cost of the taxpayer. Even Darling seems to accept that this was necessary to some degree although he is unhappy about the details.
The real challenge of Osborne is that he is very, very good at setting the narrative. In the first term it was clearing up Labour's mess. Now, he is stealing some of Labour's clothes and positioning the Tories as the true party of the workers. Given that the Tories are already the party of the retired even partial success in this gives Labour a real problem. Don is absolutely right that this is the measure a prospective leader has to be measured against. I am a lot less convinced than him that any of the candidates have shown they are in the same league.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33472405
1) Automatic planning permission for brownfield sites. This will lead to more housing, but of low quality and no thought given to how they will form communities. Will Section 106 agreements still be possible?
2) "Another change would see ministers seek to scrap the need for planning permission in London for developers who want to extend buildings to the height of neighbouring properties." This will lead to rich people 'stealing' light from neighbours. This is an important issue, leaving aside the quality and style of the resultant work.
We need to be building communities, not just houses, and the first move in particular will do nothing for that.
We need to be encouraging lots more brownfield development. The idea we should encourage greenfield development when there are brownfield sites available is perverse. IO don't understand this compulsion to build all over the countryside.
And there is no reason at all why the measure should result in lower quality housing.
Similarly Labour can't get the better of Osborne.
Besides it is ridiculous in a city the size of London that we encourage the expansion of the city into the surrounding countryside whilst at the same time hollowing it out in the middle.
The current estimates are that there is sufficient brownfield land available for over 200,000 new houses in England. That should be used before more greenfield development is allowed.
You won't, why waste your time and energy?
The definition of a living wage is "An hourly rate set independently and updated annually" which "is calculated according to the basic cost of living in the UK" (http://www.livingwage.org.uk/what-living-wage).
Marching onto Labour territory and claiming to accept the principle of a living wage means that if Osborne's rhetoric does not match voters' experiences and expectations he will be in serious trouble.
As ever, the Opposition is dependent on circumstances. But things do not always go as Governments plan. See Gordon Brown. Hubris and over-confidence, combined with events, can lay low even those who seem the strongest.
Besides the potential for friction with neighbours development without planning permission would include problems with road congestion and parking.
There is also a couple of other objections, the first being that brownfield sites are also ideal for developing industries and employment rather than just housing, and the fact that people often prefer to live in greenfield locations.
Planning permission exists for a reason, reform may well be overdue, but "automatic planning permission" may well be like Osbornes mass road expansion scheme be a developers dream and a residents nightmare.
Could be a good match between Federer and Murray today.
Your model would just repeat the hideous mistakes of the sixties and seventies.
You need to build developments that encourage communities to develop. Concentrating on just houses - as these changes surely will - means that the subsidiary items that are unprofitable for developers items will be forgotten.
Things like community centres, transport links, green spaces, shops, zoned business/industry - are things developers generally do not like, compared to easy-to-shift and profitable housing. Section 106 has to be used to pry them from developers' cold hands.
Yet they are vital to create thriving, happy communities.
But I think we've disagreed about this before, and I need to take the little 'un out for the morning.
Something about a cost of living crisis?
I'm not sure Labour want to be in a position where they're essentially sitting back, fingers crossed.
Fair enough, say there is room for 200k houses on brownfield in England. Assume we can build on it all (though much of it may be in places people don't want to live, such as decaying northern cities). That's about ten months' demand for new houses, or one-tenth of the backlog we have. After we use that up, every house we ever build will need to be on greenfield (except for one or two on newly available brownfield, but that becomes available very slowly).
http://www.rics.org/uk/news/news-insight/press-releases/enough-available-brownfield-land-to-build-226000-houses-by-2019/
And if we have a housing shortage then people will live where they can get a house. Indeed many people prefer to live in cities compared to the countryside.
Incidentally the odds on Farron are ridiculously short at 1.05 on Betfair. What has happened to cause this? Norman and Tim were equally warmly applauded at the Hustings on monday.
O/T - and simply for discussion: given that the Government intends to sack one civil servant in four, do people think that now is the time to move to the US model of public service, in which full-time officials are chosen from the ranks of the governing party?
Was watching TV last night and whilst taking a phone call, the programme changed to one on obesity.
I was amazed to find that the young man (early 20s?) in question:
(a) He is classed as disabled - who came up with that definition
(b) He has a carer in twice a day to wash him etc which costs HMG £8,000 p.a.
(c) He has enough money to order takeaways (kebabs etc)
(d) He said that his obesity is not his fault.
Why should he receive so much state aid when he has no intention of helping himself?
Also the programme revealed the huge amount of NHS time and cost spent on operations to minimise their food intake. Just send them out to parts of Africa and they would soon lose weight.
At the heart of it, they were still basically relying on things they had no control on and what you're suggesting would be a repeat of that.
I do not think that is wise.
But "automatic planning permission" covers a multitude. We need a bit more detail.
WTF? Comments like this go to the very heart of why Labour is in such a deep deep hole. I was watching. What actually happened was that a woman who owned a business in Sheffield asked Miliband if he thought the previous Labour government had spent too much. A very sensible and simple question that goes to the heart of the disaster that 13 years of New Labour unleashed upon the country. It's the gorilla in the corner of British politics - as much today as ever. Labour have a 100% track record of ruining the public finances. It seems a reasonable question to ask a man who aspires to govern us. People were worried Labour have not learned their financial lessons. But...this is 'ambushed by activists'? FFS! If Labour are ever to have a chance they need to lance the economic incompetence boil. And that means starting with an honest appraisal of past failures.
Yes there will be mistakes made and a few people upset by too much of a swing towards development, but the policy has to be in favour of development outside protected areas otherwise the country will slowly grind to a halt.
We need 200,000 houses and major infrastructure improvements, yet protest groups and NIMBYS seem to think they can delay nationally important decisions indefinitely.
Don't start me on fracking either, but I wonder if opinions would change if more of the related taxation was spent locally - ie everyone in the district where fracking takes place pays no council tax?
But I agree in principle. We also have a lot of alcoholics and drug addicts who are on disability benefits and therefore having their addictions subsidised. I have no objection to recognising addiction (including junk food addiction) as a disability, but the benefit should be tied to complying with a treatment plan.
http://labourlist.org/2015/05/about-that-question-time-audience/
The point is, though, that what she said resonated more widely. That is exactly what Don is stating.
Setting out how to set a narrative against the Tories is sensible enough, but they would need to avoid thinking that having a weakness exposed was a Tory plot essentially, even if it was, as that comfort might make them miss something crucial bow to defend against a new narrative against them which is indeed what they need to do
Regardless, Milliband should have had a sensible and coherent answer prepared. It can't be difficult with a whole team of wonks and aides to help you out.
Why Osborne can do what Labour can't - it's credibility. And he's a creation that Labour helped strengthen.
One Nation - could have worked, if it framed everything else.
Cost of Living Crisis - completely dependent on people experiencing that. If they don't, you're screwed. Even a kazoo has more notes that this.
Proactive vs reactive, essentially.
I didn't realise it wasn't obvious.
The truth hurts, and I do not think that Labour members are ready to accept the truth yet.
1. Will it win back 20 seats from the SNP? Answer No.
2. Can any of them create an impresssion of being a competent Govt in waiting through endless nit picking when the majority view in England is that the Govt finances need to be run by credible professionals? Answer No.
3. Will this endless focus on the welfare junkies win back England? Answer No.
4. Will any of these candidates attract back WWC and avoid further losses to parties that have a tougher line on immigration? Answer No.
5. In an era of an aging voter base can any of them make the party one for the over 55s? Answer No.
Spying the leftover papers in the morning smothered in congealed orange grease and fat streaked meat is just OMG
There are several reasons for my scepticism. First of all, although Osborne's friends in the media are currently depicting him as a master strategist, he really isn't. He's capable of pulling off remarkable political coups but he is also capable of some quite unnecessary and egregious blunders. He seems to me to be rather arrogant and casual, a bit of a Heseltine or Powell figure, but without quite their intellectual firepower. Second, he is also personally not particularly popular (and I am told, not likeable in person). That, incidentally, may be one reason why he has never tried to unseat Cameron who does the smooth stuff pretty well. Brown didn't get that, but Brown was even less of a master strategist than Osborne. Third, he is also a millionaire public schoolboy at a time when the Conservatives will be anxious to differentiate themselves from Labour (three of those candidates are, shall we say, being rather creative with their backgrounds to hide how comfortable they were in practice). Fourth, history suggests the mere fact that he is favourite means he is likely to be at best an also-ran if he stands at all. Look at how Major, Thatcher and Home popped up from pretty much nowhere (in terms of previously canvassed leadership potential).
A more likely scenario is that Osborne finds a middle-ranking minister with an attractive backstory and puts them forward as, in effect, his nominee. There are ways that could go wrong, but a ticket of Javid and Osborne, or even Truss and Osborne, would seem to me a much more formidable combination than Osborne PM and somebody else trying to hold a second base (Johnson or Hammond, perhaps). My suspicion is that the Conservative membership will see it that way too.
So the question may not be exactly, 'how do you beat Osborne', but, 'how do you beat a Conservative party leader backed up by Osborne?' And that's a question I can't see any of the three making a meaningful effort to answer.
EDIT: in the last line, read 'three serious candidates.' We all know Corbyn's answer and we also know it wouldn't work.
They fought terribly over the EU, but knew they had a problem. They also seemed to know that they'd cranked back public spending too far in too many areas and Labour stole their clothes because the electorate didn't trust them anymore.
I'm finding it really hard to think of a similar level of denial re Spending Too Much five years on.
I find it intriguing that the membership spew out their hate for Blair, when he is the only man in living memory that took the party to a clear majority. How many of us here voted for him in 1997, yet are now clearly in Cameron's camp?
What's happened is that the government has chosen to take less money from the middle classes and reduced the support it will give to other members of society. This is not the same as taking from the poor to prop up the lifestyles of the middle class.
It never appears to cross their minds that the borrowing created a problem for future generations, who will also need to build schools and hospitals.
The proposals are aimed at staving off financial collapse and preventing a possible exit from the eurozone.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-33473779
Is it not a bit late to vote on something that has already been given to the EU/EZ? Or is the PM just trying to force their hand?
I'm starting to lay Osborne now as next leader, to add to a huge (for me) lay on Boris.
The Budget on Wednesday was broadly welcomed by the public but there was some opposition to the public sector pay cap and ending of maintenance grants and Labour should focus their fire on policies like that
The overspending was IN ADDITION to the new schools and hospitals.
Wasn't the worst moment when the Cons cruelly broke the Yougov consensus by tricking 2 million more "activists" to vote for them than Ed ?
I thought it was the winners who rewrote history...
We discourage tobacco - it causes cancer. We discourage alcohol. We encourage sensible eating. We move to ban addictive gambling. Yet when someone is morbidly obese and their life is threatened by it, we actively help them.
Left to their own devices, they'd struggle to get out of bed. So we pay carers to help them access more food. Are they not accessories to a potential death?
I saw the gentleman say it wasn't his fault that he was overweight. Were the carers force-feeding him?
Edit. In Prader Willi syndrome, where eating is compulsive, carers actively take steps to prevent the patient eating too much. Yet a psychological flawed (we used to say greedy) person is allowed full rein.
How he afforded it is beyond my maths, and it's not helping him at all to deliver to his bedside the very thing that is killing him.
Home was elected by soundings so under a different system, anyway he was Foreign Secretary at the time so hardly came from nowhere. Thatcher was elected leader in opposition, as indeed were Hague and IDS
The real problem with brownfield sites seems to be builders not wanting to develop them. VAT plays a part in this but so does the basic ease with which greenfield sites can be developed compared to redevelopment of brownfield sites.
Now every time we hear about the need for more houses it is couched in social terms - for the good of the country etc and this is used as the excuse to allow developers to overrule local opposition to development. But the other side of the coin must also be enforced. If this is not just about developers making large profits but is also about 'social good' then the developers must also be forced to make use of the land available and build houses where we as a society want them not just where they want them. You can't have it both ways and for way too long it has been all one way traffic as far as developers getting what they want is concerned.
The effects of Brown's nepotism and plottings combined with the effects of the all women selections and union backed candidates, has reduced the talent pool of Labour MPs. The Conservative MP talent pool after GE2010 looks far superior to the one that Labour have post GE 2015.