politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Labour is paying a price for its elongated leadership contest
Labour’s abstention move does look like a mistake and was the product of the party not having a confident leader in place to steer the party through the mine-field that had been carefully set by Osborne.
I've been on the Trump betting bandwagon for about 2 months now, even before Trump was a candidate, and I'll tell you why.
Trump is the American Berlusconi, if Berlusconi dominated italian politics for almost 20 years through the power of TV, then so can Trump.
The extreme love-hate relationship between Trump and the media is his warp engine propelling him at enormous speeds forward, example: Last week CNN mentioned his name once every 5 minutes on average all day everyday for the whole week. Sure they are blasting him, but on topics which the average republican actually agrees with Trump, and I'm not sure about the McCain comments because the average republican hates McCain ever since he called them wackos and crazies.
Case in point, the screaming DeMoine Register editorial, Iowa's leading newspaper, calling for Trump to drop out not because of his policies but because he's starving Jeb Bush from oxygen and prevents Kasich from being on the debates:
"In just five weeks, he has polluted the political waters to such an extent that serious candidates who actually have the credentials to serve as president can't get their message across to voters. In fact, some of them can't even win a spot in one of the upcoming debates, since those slots are reserved for candidates leading in the polls."
Now that's precisely the kind of media moaning that attracts republican voters to Trump.
I said last night that Harman did a big mistake. And at the worst time possible in the midst of a leadership election.
At least the LD will never get a single vote out of it, because only 2.5 months ago they were in government with the Tories and the notion that they are the real opposition is laughable.
Assumes all Labour MPs would vote and vote no. In reality, due to pairing, the Tories could probably ensure it passed with a majority of about 20, even if they all turned up.
The left-wing block vote of LD (they are left wing now) + Lab + Green + PC + SDLP + SNP + Sylvia is 304 in this parliament.
Unless there's very poor whipping discipline, all controversial Tory measures should pass by a similar amount. Of course, that does mean keeping Tory rebel numbers to ten or less.
This makes the decision by the Lib Dems to get on with their leadership contest look a sound one. The party's response is far more sure-footed now Tim Farron is in post.
I disagree with Speedy that the Lib Dems don't have credibility on this - these exact cuts (both the total of £12bn, loss of youth housing benefit, ESA cuts, removing grants from poorer students, number of children restrictions) were opposed and blocked in government. Most of them weren't exactly secrets that the Tories were pushing for them - so very easy to talk about being consistent. Whereas Labour opposed e.g. restricting child benefit for higher rate taxpayers, and are now supposedly comfortable with these more punitive measures.
Assumes all Labour MPs would vote and vote no. In reality, due to pairing, the Tories could probably ensure it passed with a majority of about 20, even if they all turned up.
The left-wing block vote of LD (they are left wing now) + Lab + Green + PC + SDLP + SNP + Sylvia is 304 in this parliament.
Unless there's very poor whipping discipline, all controversial Tory measures should pass by a similar amount. Of course, that does mean keeping Tory rebel numbers to ten or less.
DUP seem to have joined the Lefties for last night's vote.
This makes the decision by the Lib Dems to get on with their leadership contest look a sound one. The party's response is far more sure-footed now Tim Farron is in post.
I disagree with Speedy that the Lib Dems don't have credibility on this - these exact cuts (both the total of £12bn, loss of youth housing benefit, ESA cuts, removing grants from poorer students, number of children restrictions) were opposed and blocked in government. Most of them weren't exactly secrets that the Tories were pushing for them - so very easy to talk about being consistent. Whereas Labour opposed e.g. restricting child benefit for higher rate taxpayers, and are now supposedly comfortable with these more punitive measures.
Consistency is a really good thing - when you're right
Glad to see you're better Mike: leading with an intellectually dishonest Lib Dem tweet. ;-)
Thank you but not quite better. I'm currently under instructions not to drive, use heavy machinery or sign legal documents. Nothing was said about posting on PB.
@CarolineLucas: Unbelievable - @uklabour announces they'll abstain *again* - this time on Govt's terrible Finance Bill. Official Opposition? - clue in name
Assumes all Labour MPs would vote and vote no. In reality, due to pairing, the Tories could probably ensure it passed with a majority of about 20, even if they all turned up.
The left-wing block vote of LD (they are left wing now) + Lab + Green + PC + SDLP + SNP + Sylvia is 304 in this parliament.
Unless there's very poor whipping discipline, all controversial Tory measures should pass by a similar amount. Of course, that does mean keeping Tory rebel numbers to ten or less.
DUP seem to have joined the Lefties for last night's vote.
DUP are a Northern Ireland UKIP. They do act leftie on welfare.
Really the Tories should be trying to keep them sweet. A time will come where they need their votes.
Glad to see you're better Mike: leading with an intellectually dishonest Lib Dem tweet. ;-)
Thank you but not quite better. I'm currently under instructions not to drive, use heavy machinery or sign legal documents. Nothing was said about posting on PB.
@CarolineLucas: Unbelievable - @uklabour announces they'll abstain *again* - this time on Govt's terrible Finance Bill. Official Opposition? - clue in name
Lucas is really pretty thick. I suspect the main beneficiaries of Labour's mess will be the SNP - despite the tweet above the left vote will not be rushing back to Farron's Christian/Liberal Democrats.
At least the LD will never get a single vote out of it, because only 2.5 months ago they were in government with the Tories and the notion that they are the real opposition is laughable.
Carry on laughing, Mr Speedy! The public is gradually becoming aware of the fact that we had five years of stable government, which was slowly getting the public finances under control - and also of the very many policies that the Lib Dems were preventing the Tories from implementing.
Now that the Tories are at liberty to impose their will on the country, the Lib Dems have, rightly, resumed their position as open and public opponents of the more damaging Tory policies. Impossible to leave this to the Labour leaders, who don´t know whether they are coming or going.
Whilst the agonisingly long leadership vacuum doesn't help Labour, I'm not sure that having a leader in place would have solved the problem. The basic issue is the same as that which dogged Gordon Brown at the end: they cannot decide whether they actually want to continuing blowing absurd amounts of taxpayers' money on welfare or not. Osborne hasn't really set any mine-fields, he has just proceeded on some sensible reforms which (as it happens) expose the absurdity of Labour's 'must cut down on cake but not this cake, and we're not saying which cake' position.
@CarolineLucas: Unbelievable - @uklabour announces they'll abstain *again* - this time on Govt's terrible Finance Bill. Official Opposition? - clue in name
Lucas is really pretty thick. I suspect the main beneficiaries of Labour's mess will be the SNP - despite the tweet above the left vote will not be rushing back to Farron's Christian/Liberal Democrats.
Surely the SNP will only benefit in part of the United Kingdom. Might not others Greens, LibDems even UKIP benefit in England & Wales? In what way is what Lucas said "thick"?
George Osborne is a truly great strategist, up there with Caesar and Eisenhower.
Labour currently have all the nous and strategic abilities as Hannibal at Zama or Crassus at Carrhae.
Now that we are free of the lead weights that are the Lib Dems, we're seeing a true, One Nation Conservative government such as helping the poor with the living wage.
George Osborne is a truly great strategist, up there with Caesar and Eisenhower.
Labour currently have all the nous and strategic abilities as Hannibal at Zama or Crassus at Carrhae.
Now that we are free of the lead weights that are the Lib Dems, we're seeing a true, One Nation Conservative government such as helping the poor with the living wage.
George Osborne is a truly great strategist, up there with Caesar and Eisenhower.
Labour currently have all the nous and strategic abilities as Hannibal at Zama or Crassus at Carrhae.
Now that we are free of the lead weights that are the Lib Dems, we're seeing a true, One Nation Conservative government such as helping the poor with the living wage.
Honestly, this government is giving me the horn.
Calm down, dear.
Look, I had to endure the leadership of IDS for two years, I'm just enjoying the fun whilst it lasts.
Labour can't go on being this useless forever, nor can the Tories remain this awesome, surely?
Whilst the agonisingly long leadership vacuum doesn't help Labour, I'm not sure that having a leader in place would have solved the problem. The basic issue is the same as that which dogged Gordon Brown at the end: they cannot decide whether they actually want to continuing blowing absurd amounts of taxpayers' money on welfare or not. Osborne hasn't really set any mine-fields, he has just proceeded on some sensible reforms which (as it happens) expose the absurdity of Labour's 'must cut down on cake but not this cake, and we're not saying which cake' position.
George Osborne is a truly great strategist, up there with Caesar and Eisenhower.
Labour currently have all the nous and strategic abilities as Hannibal at Zama or Crassus at Carrhae.
Now that we are free of the lead weights that are the Lib Dems, we're seeing a true, One Nation Conservative government such as helping the poor with the living wage.
George Osborne is a truly great strategist, up there with Caesar and Eisenhower.
Labour currently have all the nous and strategic abilities as Hannibal at Zama or Crassus at Carrhae.
Now that we are free of the lead weights that are the Lib Dems, we're seeing a true, One Nation Conservative government such as helping the poor with the living wage.
Honestly, this government is giving me the horn.
I've had perpetual horn for several weeks now.
This government is providing me with much political Viagra.
George Osborne is a truly great strategist, up there with Caesar and Eisenhower.
Labour currently have all the nous and strategic abilities as Hannibal at Zama or Crassus at Carrhae.
Now that we are free of the lead weights that are the Lib Dems, we're seeing a true, One Nation Conservative government such as helping the poor with the living wage.
Honestly, this government is giving me the horn.
Peak hubris?
No, I'm just enjoying the moment, I'm fearful the Tory party will tear itself over the EU referendum within the next 18 months or so.
The end of pay progression based on seniority for the Civil Service is brilliant. It's a much needed reform that's popular with the public, but one which the public sector unions will tear the Labour Party apart over.
George Osborne is a truly great strategist, up there with Caesar and Eisenhower.
Labour currently have all the nous and strategic abilities as Hannibal at Zama or Crassus at Carrhae.
Now that we are free of the lead weights that are the Lib Dems, we're seeing a true, One Nation Conservative government such as helping the poor with the living wage.
Honestly, this government is giving me the horn.
Eisenhower a great strategist? Are you back on the sauce, Mr. Eagles? Eisenhower had a great many good qualities that enabled him to to perform extremely well as Supreme Allied Commander, probably better than any other septic could have, but a strategist he wasn't never mind a great strategist.
George Osborne is a truly great strategist, up there with Caesar and Eisenhower.
Labour currently have all the nous and strategic abilities as Hannibal at Zama or Crassus at Carrhae.
Now that we are free of the lead weights that are the Lib Dems, we're seeing a true, One Nation Conservative government such as helping the poor with the living wage.
Honestly, this government is giving me the horn.
Peak hubris?
No, I'm just enjoying the moment, I'm fearful the Tory party will tear itself over the EU referendum within the next 18 months or so.
So you got to enjoy the fun whilst it lasts.
OK, good point. Rather like the Kippers when they were predicting 100+ seats.
Here's a free tip to Labour, offered gratis, without strings: You need to start by working on a coherent position, instead you are making the mistake of working backwards from your focus-groups and concluding you have to avoid saying anything which might be unpopular with anyone. That simply leads you into the position of having nothing to say except for vacuuous platitudes which Osborne can easily expose as hollow and contradictory.
The end of pay progression based on seniority for the Civil Service is brilliant. It's a much needed reform that's popular with the public, but one which the public sector unions will tear the Labour Party apart over.
Presumably this means that all staff appointed into a pay grade will immediately be paid at the top of the band, rather than having to wait X years to get there a bit at a time. That sounds fair.
Whilst the agonisingly long leadership vacuum doesn't help Labour, I'm not sure that having a leader in place would have solved the problem. The basic issue is the same as that which dogged Gordon Brown at the end: they cannot decide whether they actually want to continuing blowing absurd amounts of taxpayers' money on welfare or not. Osborne hasn't really set any mine-fields, he has just proceeded on some sensible reforms which (as it happens) expose the absurdity of Labour's 'must cut down on cake but not this cake, and we're not saying which cake' position.
Osborne has made a series of choices which will have a negative consequence on a number of low income working families, but which will benefit other groups. Labour should have opposed those choices, while welcoming his conversion to the idea that all those in work should be paid a living wage and noting that the elasticity of deficit reduction targets indicates there is no pressing need to balance the books within a defined period of years - especially if it causes additional hardship to many millions of people who are already finding things tough. As you say, this is not a minefield set with a series of craftily arranged traps. What we have is a Tory chancellor pursuing Tory policies.
George Osborne is a truly great strategist, up there with Caesar and Eisenhower.
Labour currently have all the nous and strategic abilities as Hannibal at Zama or Crassus at Carrhae.
Now that we are free of the lead weights that are the Lib Dems, we're seeing a true, One Nation Conservative government such as helping the poor with the living wage.
Honestly, this government is giving me the horn.
Peak hubris?
No, that was our resident candidate Nick Palmer pre-election. I know he doesn't like us mentioning it now but day after day he'd post 'tick tock' and his impending 7% victory margin as the election approached.
I warned him it smacked of hubris at the time. It did, and it was.
The problem with this theory is Labour couldn't have been more united in the last parliament, while the Tories were constantly rowing in public - but who won the election?
George Osborne is a truly great strategist, up there with Caesar and Eisenhower.
Labour currently have all the nous and strategic abilities as Hannibal at Zama or Crassus at Carrhae.
Now that we are free of the lead weights that are the Lib Dems, we're seeing a true, One Nation Conservative government such as helping the poor with the living wage.
Honestly, this government is giving me the horn.
Eisenhower a great strategist? Are you back on the sauce, Mr. Eagles? Eisenhower had a great many good qualities that enabled him to to perform extremely well as Supreme Allied Commander, probably better than any other septic could have, but a strategist he wasn't never mind a great strategist.
I've had a very liquid lunch*
Eisenhower liberated mainland Europe at minimal cost. He did great work in Africa too.
Plus, I reckon, his sending of the 101st Airborne to escort the Little Rock Nine, did a lot for American race relations, made fans of Jim Crow look like numpties.
*nothing stronger than mango juice and pineapple juice.
Luke Akehurst has estimated that, when you account for the size of each individual CLP, Corbyn is doing better and Burnham worse than the headline figures suggest:
These are the figures by total 2010 membership of English and Welsh CLPs nominating the candidate:
Here's a free tip to Labour, offered gratis, without strings: You need to start by working on a coherent position, instead you are making the mistake of working backwards from your focus-groups and concluding you have to avoid saying anything which might be unpopular with anyone. That simply leads you into the position of having nothing to say except for vacuuous platitudes which Osborne can easily expose as hollow and contradictory.
Actually, as noted elsewhere, Labour's HUGE problem on the welfare bill is that focus groups are telling them that cutting welfare is spectacularly popular, but Labour activists are telling them how much they hate it.
So they know what they need to do to get elected (by the country) but not by the party...
George Osborne is a truly great strategist, up there with Caesar and Eisenhower.
Labour currently have all the nous and strategic abilities as Hannibal at Zama or Crassus at Carrhae.
Now that we are free of the lead weights that are the Lib Dems, we're seeing a true, One Nation Conservative government such as helping the poor with the living wage.
Honestly, this government is giving me the horn.
Peak hubris?
No, I'm just enjoying the moment, I'm fearful the Tory party will tear itself over the EU referendum within the next 18 months or so.
So you got to enjoy the fun whilst it lasts.
At some point in the next 4 years it's going to become very hard to get any real Tory legislation through parliament.
Cameron have this year and next year to get the big stuff through - incl. EVEL, BBC reform, human rights reform and fox hunting etc. - and they know that.
They also need to factor in the Lords playing silly buggers, which could delay the lot by a good year.
At least the LD will never get a single vote out of it, because only 2.5 months ago they were in government with the Tories and the notion that they are the real opposition is laughable.
Carry on laughing, Mr Speedy! The public is gradually becoming aware of the fact that we had five years of stable government, which was slowly getting the public finances under control - and also of the very many policies that the Lib Dems were preventing the Tories from implementing.
Now that the Tories are at liberty to impose their will on the country, the Lib Dems have, rightly, resumed their position as open and public opponents of the more damaging Tory policies. Impossible to leave this to the Labour leaders, who don´t know whether they are coming or going.
I'm ever more convinced Mr Clipp is a computer generated LD.
@CarolineLucas: Unbelievable - @uklabour announces they'll abstain *again* - this time on Govt's terrible Finance Bill. Official Opposition? - clue in name
Lucas is really pretty thick. I suspect the main beneficiaries of Labour's mess will be the SNP - despite the tweet above the left vote will not be rushing back to Farron's Christian/Liberal Democrats.
Surely the SNP will only benefit in part of the United Kingdom. Might not others Greens, LibDems even UKIP benefit in England & Wales? In what way is what Lucas said "thick"?
She doesn't understand the notion of the role of HM Opposition rather more nuanced than her silly opportunist tweet. I'm sure that Greens will benefit - I doubt that LDs will despite their efforts to airbrush History. Attacking the govt on benefit cuts is not the right territory for UKIP.
Whilst the agonisingly long leadership vacuum doesn't help Labour, I'm not sure that having a leader in place would have solved the problem. The basic issue is the same as that which dogged Gordon Brown at the end: they cannot decide whether they actually want to continuing blowing absurd amounts of taxpayers' money on welfare or not. Osborne hasn't really set any mine-fields, he has just proceeded on some sensible reforms which (as it happens) expose the absurdity of Labour's 'must cut down on cake but not this cake, and we're not saying which cake' position.
Osborne has made a series of choices which will have a negative consequence on a number of low income working families, but which will benefit other groups. Labour should have opposed those choices, while welcoming his conversion to the idea that all those in work should be paid a living wage and noting that the elasticity of deficit reduction targets indicates there is no pressing need to balance the books within a defined period of years - especially if it causes additional hardship to many millions of people who are already finding things tough. As you say, this is not a minefield set with a series of craftily arranged traps. What we have is a Tory chancellor pursuing Tory policies.
The "pressing need" is to get the debt down to pre-recession levels before the next recession.
George Osborne is a truly great strategist, up there with Caesar and Eisenhower.
Labour currently have all the nous and strategic abilities as Hannibal at Zama or Crassus at Carrhae.
Now that we are free of the lead weights that are the Lib Dems, we're seeing a true, One Nation Conservative government such as helping the poor with the living wage.
Honestly, this government is giving me the horn.
Peak hubris?
No, that was our resident candidate Nick Palmer pre-election. I know he doesn't like us mentioning it now but day after day he'd post 'tick tock' and his impending 7% victory margin as the election approached.
I warned him it smacked of hubris at the time. It did, and it was.
So we should all know what hubris looks like. Some, it seems, have already forgotten. For all Osborne's fine words - and the exultation with which they were received - a series of choices was made last week that could well see many millions of working families become materially worse off, including a large number of those who rely on a self-employed breadwinner. We have yet to see how that will play out.
The end of pay progression based on seniority for the Civil Service is brilliant. It's a much needed reform that's popular with the public, but one which the public sector unions will tear the Labour Party apart over.
I'm frankly amazed it has been allowed to linger this long.
Nice to see the Lib Dems keeping up their devotion to dishonesty by deliberately using the nature of the pairing system to create myths that the bill would've been defeated if Labour had been whipped to oppose. The new pictures of an empty chamber...
Let's face it, it wasn;t strategy that was required. It was masterly organisation and diplomacy. Many on the American side could barely bring themselves to be in the presence of Monty.
Here's a free tip to Labour, offered gratis, without strings: You need to start by working on a coherent position, instead you are making the mistake of working backwards from your focus-groups and concluding you have to avoid saying anything which might be unpopular with anyone. That simply leads you into the position of having nothing to say except for vacuuous platitudes which Osborne can easily expose as hollow and contradictory.
Actually, as noted elsewhere, Labour's HUGE problem on the welfare bill is that focus groups are telling them that cutting welfare is spectacularly popular, but Labour activists are telling them how much they hate it.
So they know what they need to do to get elected (by the country) but not by the party...
George Osborne is a truly great strategist, up there with Caesar and Eisenhower.
Labour currently have all the nous and strategic abilities as Hannibal at Zama or Crassus at Carrhae.
Now that we are free of the lead weights that are the Lib Dems, we're seeing a true, One Nation Conservative government such as helping the poor with the living wage.
Honestly, this government is giving me the horn.
Peak hubris?
No, I'm just enjoying the moment, I'm fearful the Tory party will tear itself over the EU referendum within the next 18 months or so.
So you got to enjoy the fun whilst it lasts.
At some point in the next 4 years it's going to become very hard to get any real Tory legislation through parliament.
Cameron have this year and next year to get the big stuff through - incl. EVEL, BBC reform, human rights reform and fox hunting etc. - and they know that.
They also need to factor in the Lords playing silly buggers, which could delay the lot by a good year.
Dave has the nuclear option of appointing 500 new peers if the Lords want to pervert the will of the voters.
The voters elected a Tory government with a majority remember that you ermine clad unelected people.
As you say, this is not a minefield set with a series of craftily arranged traps. What we have is a Tory chancellor pursuing Tory policies.
What we have is a Tory Chancellor offering a coherent Tory package of measures. Labour are free to propose a coherent Labour package of measures, if there is such a thing. Their mistake is that they are desperate to avoid doing anything of the sort, instead offering piecemeal opposition which completely collapses as soon as anyone asks 'OK, what would you do?'.
Given that they have been making this mistake since the winter of 2008, they do seem to be very slow learners.
The problem with this theory is Labour couldn't have been more united in the last parliament, while the Tories were constantly rowing in public - but who won the election?
He is aware of that
@theobertram: Just to be clear: I'm not advocating we brush disagreement under the carpet. We need to argue this one out.
His argument is mainly with the ferocity with which Labour is attacking itself.
There is a line between healthy debate and delusional self harm...
The end of pay progression based on seniority for the Civil Service is brilliant. It's a much needed reform that's popular with the public, but one which the public sector unions will tear the Labour Party apart over.
Presumably this means that all staff appointed into a pay grade will immediately be paid at the top of the band, rather than having to wait X years to get there a bit at a time. That sounds fair.
Not at all. Their place within the band should depend on merit: the best performers should be at the top of the band and the worse performers should be at the bottom. Of course, as we do not have the ability to reduce people's salaries, you should put people at the bottom when they get to a new role, until they prove themselves worthy of being higher up. That's what happens in the private sector.
Or, even better, you could keep people at the bottom of the band and give them a bonus fitting to their performance each year.
Whilst the agonisingly long leadership vacuum doesn't help Labour, I'm not sure that having a leader in place would have solved the problem. The basic issue is the same as that which dogged Gordon Brown at the end: they cannot decide whether they actually want to continuing blowing absurd amounts of taxpayers' money on welfare or not. Osborne hasn't really set any mine-fields, he has just proceeded on some sensible reforms which (as it happens) expose the absurdity of Labour's 'must cut down on cake but not this cake, and we're not saying which cake' position.
Osborne has made a series of choices which will have a negative consequence on a number of low income working families, but which will benefit other groups. Labour should have opposed those choices, while welcoming his conversion to the idea that all those in work should be paid a living wage and noting that the elasticity of deficit reduction targets indicates there is no pressing need to balance the books within a defined period of years - especially if it causes additional hardship to many millions of people who are already finding things tough. As you say, this is not a minefield set with a series of craftily arranged traps. What we have is a Tory chancellor pursuing Tory policies.
The "pressing need" is to get the debt down to pre-recession levels before the next recession.
Unless the next recession will not happen for thirty plus years there is no chance of that happening. The very best that can be hoped for is that HMG stops increasing the national debt before the next recession strikes. Unlikely but we can live in hope.
George Osborne is a truly great strategist, up there with Caesar and Eisenhower.
Labour currently have all the nous and strategic abilities as Hannibal at Zama or Crassus at Carrhae.
Now that we are free of the lead weights that are the Lib Dems, we're seeing a true, One Nation Conservative government such as helping the poor with the living wage.
Honestly, this government is giving me the horn.
Peak hubris?
No, that was our resident candidate Nick Palmer pre-election. I know he doesn't like us mentioning it now but day after day he'd post 'tick tock' and his impending 7% victory margin as the election approached.
I warned him it smacked of hubris at the time. It did, and it was.
So we should all know what hubris looks like. Some, it seems, have already forgotten. For all Osborne's fine words - and the exultation with which they were received - a series of choices was made last week that could well see many millions of working families become materially worse off, including a large number of those who rely on a self-employed breadwinner. We have yet to see how that will play out.
I don't agree that millions will be materially worse off. However, I do agree that the parliament will become much more challenging as time wears on and there are no guarantees about GE2020.
Luke Akehurst has estimated that, when you account for the size of each individual CLP, Corbyn is doing better and Burnham worse than the headline figures suggest:
These are the figures by total 2010 membership of English and Welsh CLPs nominating the candidate:
But as we know, just 66 people were actually involved in the Broxtowe CLP nomination. If that is representative of levels in other CLPs, we are looking at very low numbers overall.
Here's a free tip to Labour, offered gratis, without strings: You need to start by working on a coherent position, instead you are making the mistake of working backwards from your focus-groups and concluding you have to avoid saying anything which might be unpopular with anyone. That simply leads you into the position of having nothing to say except for vacuuous platitudes which Osborne can easily expose as hollow and contradictory.
Actually, as noted elsewhere, Labour's HUGE problem on the welfare bill is that focus groups are telling them that cutting welfare is spectacularly popular, but Labour activists are telling them how much they hate it.
So they know what they need to do to get elected (by the country) but not by the party...
Awesome!
That sounds pretty much spot on. The public have moved right on welfare, immigration and excessive spending; the Labour party has if anything moved left and now gives the impression of wanting to change the electorate. Damn them for voting for the EVIL Tories!
Luke Akehurst has estimated that, when you account for the size of each individual CLP, Corbyn is doing better and Burnham worse than the headline figures suggest:
These are the figures by total 2010 membership of English and Welsh CLPs nominating the candidate:
I think for the next few months the UK is effectively a one party state - Labour have the numbers but not the will to be an effective opposition - the LibDems have the will but not the numbers. I know both parties still blame the SNP as opposed to the Tories for their misfortune - both parties need to come out of denial and recognise that they themselves lost to the Tories, that the Tories should be their main target and stop wasting bullets on the SNP. There will be plenty opportunities to fire bullets at the SNP once both parties have got their houses in order.
In a similar vein I think the political commentators also need to stop focusing on the SNP - eg. Iain Martin did a piece earlier peddling the line that the SNP are misleading folks around the mechanics of Westminster voting and wittering on about the "pairing" system, which for what its worth is completely irrelevant to last nights vote:
Here's a free tip to Labour, offered gratis, without strings: You need to start by working on a coherent position, instead you are making the mistake of working backwards from your focus-groups and concluding you have to avoid saying anything which might be unpopular with anyone. That simply leads you into the position of having nothing to say except for vacuuous platitudes which Osborne can easily expose as hollow and contradictory.
Actually, as noted elsewhere, Labour's HUGE problem on the welfare bill is that focus groups are telling them that cutting welfare is spectacularly popular, but Labour activists are telling them how much they hate it.
So they know what they need to do to get elected (by the country) but not by the party...
Awesome!
Eventually, when Labour has had long enough in the wilderness, a leader will come along and take on the membership over issue's like welfare... And the membership will suck it up because they will be so desperate to get back into the power they will again support a leader who will do or say anything to win.
Clearly Chukka and Jarvis correctly calculated that now is not the time... It will probably happen after Lab's next election defeat in 2010.
The end of pay progression based on seniority for the Civil Service is brilliant. It's a much needed reform that's popular with the public, but one which the public sector unions will tear the Labour Party apart over.
Presumably this means that all staff appointed into a pay grade will immediately be paid at the top of the band, rather than having to wait X years to get there a bit at a time. That sounds fair.
No it doesn't. Pay increases should be earned not handed out to time-servers.
As you say, this is not a minefield set with a series of craftily arranged traps. What we have is a Tory chancellor pursuing Tory policies.
What we have is a Tory Chancellor offering a coherent Tory package of measures. Labour are free to propose a coherent Labour package of measures, if there is such a thing. Their mistake is that are desperate to avoid doing anything of the sort, instead offering piecemeal opposition which completely collapses as soon as anyone asks 'OK, what would you do?'.
Given that they have been making this mistake since the winter of 2008, they do seem to be very slow learners.
At least the LD will never get a single vote out of it, because only 2.5 months ago they were in government with the Tories and the notion that they are the real opposition is laughable.
Carry on laughing, Mr Speedy! The public is gradually becoming aware of the fact that we had five years of stable government, which was slowly getting the public finances under control - and also of the very many policies that the Lib Dems were preventing the Tories from implementing.
Now that the Tories are at liberty to impose their will on the country, the Lib Dems have, rightly, resumed their position as open and public opponents of the more damaging Tory policies. Impossible to leave this to the Labour leaders, who don´t know whether they are coming or going.
I'm ever more convinced Mr Clipp is a computer generated LD.
@CarolineLucas: Unbelievable - @uklabour announces they'll abstain *again* - this time on Govt's terrible Finance Bill. Official Opposition? - clue in name
Lucas is really pretty thick. I suspect the main beneficiaries of Labour's mess will be the SNP - despite the tweet above the left vote will not be rushing back to Farron's Christian/Liberal Democrats.
Surely the SNP will only benefit in part of the United Kingdom. Might not others Greens, LibDems even UKIP benefit in England & Wales? In what way is what Lucas said "thick"?
She doesn't understand the notion of the role of HM Opposition rather more nuanced than her silly opportunist tweet. I'm sure that Greens will benefit - I doubt that LDs will despite their efforts to airbrush History. Attacking the govt on benefit cuts is not the right territory for UKIP.
It's not unusual for politicians to be opportunist, that doesn't merit them being called 'thick'. It's hardly 'airbrushing history' to oppose the same cuts in opposition that you prevented in Government. I would not be surprised if all opposition parties, excluding Labour of course, benefited from a rudderless Labour party.
Whilst the agonisingly long leadership vacuum doesn't help Labour, I'm not sure that having a leader in place would have solved the problem. The basic issue is the same as that which dogged Gordon Brown at the end: they cannot decide whether they actually want to continuing blowing absurd amounts of taxpayers' money on welfare or not. Osborne hasn't really set any mine-fields, he has just proceeded on some sensible reforms which (as it happens) expose the absurdity of Labour's 'must cut down on cake but not this cake, and we're not saying which cake' position.
Osborne has made a series of choices which will have a negative consequence on a number of low income working families, but which will benefit other groups. Labour should have opposed those choices, while welcoming his conversion to the idea that all those in work should be paid a living wage and noting that the elasticity of deficit reduction targets indicates there is no pressing need to balance the books within a defined period of years - especially if it causes additional hardship to many millions of people who are already finding things tough. As you say, this is not a minefield set with a series of craftily arranged traps. What we have is a Tory chancellor pursuing Tory policies.
If people on low incomes are finding things tough on the still enormous largesse of the state, they ought to work more hours or spend less money. It sounds callous, and will never be said in public by a politician, but is echoed in the pubs, social clubs and front-rooms of working net tax-payers across the country.
My mother was born on a council estate in North Wales in the 50s; she knew poverty, hunger, want of clothing. She cannot believe the claims made over poverty in modern Britain today; in short she finds them laughable.
Luke Akehurst has estimated that, when you account for the size of each individual CLP, Corbyn is doing better and Burnham worse than the headline figures suggest:
These are the figures by total 2010 membership of English and Welsh CLPs nominating the candidate:
But as we know, just 66 people were actually involved in the Broxtowe CLP nomination. If that is representative of levels in other CLPs, we are looking at very low numbers overall.
But all these CLP 'nominations' mean literally nothing. They're no more than an informal straw poll of those who turn up for a meeting. The nominations have already come from the MPs and the voting will be by individual ballot next month. Why the publicity given to them, or have I missed something?
Whilst the agonisingly long leadership vacuum doesn't help Labour, I'm not sure that having a leader in place would have solved the problem. The basic issue is the same as that which dogged Gordon Brown at the end: they cannot decide whether they actually want to continuing blowing absurd amounts of taxpayers' money on welfare or not. Osborne hasn't really set any mine-fields, he has just proceeded on some sensible reforms which (as it happens) expose the absurdity of Labour's 'must cut down on cake but not this cake, and we're not saying which cake' position.
Osborne has made a series of choices which will have a negative consequence on a number of low income working families, but which will benefit other groups. Labour should have opposed those choices, while welcoming his conversion to the idea that all those in work should be paid a living wage and noting that the elasticity of deficit reduction targets indicates there is no pressing need to balance the books within a defined period of years - especially if it causes additional hardship to many millions of people who are already finding things tough. As you say, this is not a minefield set with a series of craftily arranged traps. What we have is a Tory chancellor pursuing Tory policies.
The "pressing need" is to get the debt down to pre-recession levels before the next recession.
George Osborne is a truly great strategist, up there with Caesar and Eisenhower.
Labour currently have all the nous and strategic abilities as Hannibal at Zama or Crassus at Carrhae.
Now that we are free of the lead weights that are the Lib Dems, we're seeing a true, One Nation Conservative government such as helping the poor with the living wage.
Honestly, this government is giving me the horn.
Peak hubris?
No, that was our resident candidate Nick Palmer pre-election. I know he doesn't like us mentioning it now but day after day he'd post 'tick tock' and his impending 7% victory margin as the election approached.
I warned him it smacked of hubris at the time. It did, and it was.
So we should all know what hubris looks like. Some, it seems, have already forgotten. For all Osborne's fine words - and the exultation with which they were received - a series of choices was made last week that could well see many millions of working families become materially worse off, including a large number of those who rely on a self-employed breadwinner. We have yet to see how that will play out.
We also know what bitterness looks like - it pervades your repetitive commenting of the same meme like the none too ripe lemons from the garden opposite my house.
Labour will still vote against this Bill at Third Reading. Perhaps it could also defeat it in the Lords and bring about a bit of 'ping pong'That should undo any damage done. Don't think people are really listening at the moment anyway.
George Osborne is a truly great strategist, up there with Caesar and Eisenhower.
Labour currently have all the nous and strategic abilities as Hannibal at Zama or Crassus at Carrhae.
Now that we are free of the lead weights that are the Lib Dems, we're seeing a true, One Nation Conservative government such as helping the poor with the living wage.
Honestly, this government is giving me the horn.
Peak hubris?
No, that was our resident candidate Nick Palmer pre-election. I know he doesn't like us mentioning it now but day after day he'd post 'tick tock' and his impending 7% victory margin as the election approached.
I warned him it smacked of hubris at the time. It did, and it was.
So we should all know what hubris looks like. Some, it seems, have already forgotten. For all Osborne's fine words - and the exultation with which they were received - a series of choices was made last week that could well see many millions of working families become materially worse off, including a large number of those who rely on a self-employed breadwinner. We have yet to see how that will play out.
We also know what bitterness looks like - it pervades your repetitive commenting of the same meme like the none too ripe lemons from the garden opposite my house.
I fear we cannot all offer the marvellously varied range of contributions - touching on so many different subjects - that you do. But, yes, I am bitter. I dislike Tory policy because I don't think it is good for the long-term well-being of the country and there is no-one on my side of the argument currently capable of presenting a measured, credible critique of the poor decisions that I believe are being made.
At least the LD will never get a single vote out of it, because only 2.5 months ago they were in government with the Tories and the notion that they are the real opposition is laughable.
Carry on laughing, Mr Speedy! The public is gradually becoming aware of the fact that we had five years of stable government, which was slowly getting the public finances under control - and also of the very many policies that the Lib Dems were preventing the Tories from implementing.
Now that the Tories are at liberty to impose their will on the country, the Lib Dems have, rightly, resumed their position as open and public opponents of the more damaging Tory policies. Impossible to leave this to the Labour leaders, who don´t know whether they are coming or going.
I'm ever more convinced Mr Clipp is a computer generated LD.
@CarolineLucas: Unbelievable - @uklabour announces they'll abstain *again* - this time on Govt's terrible Finance Bill. Official Opposition? - clue in name
Lucas is really pretty thick. I suspect the main beneficiaries of Labour's mess will be the SNP - despite the tweet above the left vote will not be rushing back to Farron's Christian/Liberal Democrats.
Surely the SNP will only benefit in part of the United Kingdom. Might not others Greens, LibDems even UKIP benefit in England & Wales? In what way is what Lucas said "thick"?
She doesn't understand the notion of the role of HM Opposition rather more nuanced than her silly opportunist tweet. I'm sure that Greens will benefit - I doubt that LDs will despite their efforts to airbrush History. Attacking the govt on benefit cuts is not the right territory for UKIP.
It's not unusual for politicians to be opportunist, that doesn't merit them being called 'thick'. It's hardly 'airbrushing history' to oppose the same cuts in opposition that you prevented in Government. I would not be surprised if all opposition parties, excluding Labour of course, benefited from a rudderless Labour party.
We'll have to disagree on your first point. didn't the LDs once promise not to raise tuition fees - what they say and what they did are not the same things. They also have chosen the wrong leader for garnering left-wing votes.
Luke Akehurst has estimated that, when you account for the size of each individual CLP, Corbyn is doing better and Burnham worse than the headline figures suggest:
These are the figures by total 2010 membership of English and Welsh CLPs nominating the candidate:
But as we know, just 66 people were actually involved in the Broxtowe CLP nomination. If that is representative of levels in other CLPs, we are looking at very low numbers overall.
But all these CLP 'nominations' mean literally nothing. They're no more than an informal straw poll of those who turn up for a meeting. The nominations have already come from the MPs and the voting will be by individual ballot next month. Why the publicity given to them, or have I missed something?
Precisely. It could just be that far too much is being read into something that is not actually very representative of mainstream membership thinking. We just don't know.
Here's a free tip to Labour, offered gratis, without strings: You need to start by working on a coherent position, instead you are making the mistake of working backwards from your focus-groups and concluding you have to avoid saying anything which might be unpopular with anyone. That simply leads you into the position of having nothing to say except for vacuuous platitudes which Osborne can easily expose as hollow and contradictory.
Actually, as noted elsewhere, Labour's HUGE problem on the welfare bill is that focus groups are telling them that cutting welfare is spectacularly popular, but Labour activists are telling them how much they hate it.
So they know what they need to do to get elected (by the country) but not by the party...
Awesome!
Eventually, when Labour has had long enough in the wilderness, a leader will come along and take on the membership over issue's like welfare... And the membership will suck it up because they will be so desperate to get back into the power they will again support a leader who will do or say anything to win.
Clearly Chukka and Jarvis correctly calculated that now is not the time... It will probably happen after Lab's next election defeat in 2010.
I think that's correct. My view is that Chukka took soundings and realised Labour wasn't ready. Perhaps he felt he wasn't either and didn't want to be a Labour William Hague (even though he's no Hague)
Jarvis I think had genuine personal reasons. He's a bit more like Cameron. Not firm on any Labour belief but could be a great PR/comms/public face of Labour.
[Jeremy Corbyn] once claimed that he did not vote against the party willy-nilly, only being willing to defy the whip over three types of issues: war and peace, issues of liberty and socio-economic policy. Point out to him that this covers almost everything that the government could possibly do, and he laughs, 'I suppose it does.'
Plus, we're due a recession soon, 'cause believe it or not, Gordon Brown didn't abolish boom and bust.
Then the Tory mantra of the long term economic plan won't look so attractive to the voters.
We're "due" a recession? Really? We've only just come out of the last one...
I'd say we're due a "boom" much more than a recession!
Saying we're due a recession soon is a bit like saying that the Yellowstone supervolcano is due to erupt soon. It's true but tells us nothing useful about when it's actually going to happen.
George Osborne is a truly great strategist, up there with Caesar and Eisenhower.
Labour currently have all the nous and strategic abilities as Hannibal at Zama or Crassus at Carrhae.
Now that we are free of the lead weights that are the Lib Dems, we're seeing a true, One Nation Conservative government such as helping the poor with the living wage.
Honestly, this government is giving me the horn.
Peak hubris?
No, that was our resident candidate Nick Palmer pre-election. I know he doesn't like us mentioning it now but day after day he'd post 'tick tock' and his impending 7% victory margin as the election approached.
I warned him it smacked of hubris at the time. It did, and it was.
So we should all know what hubris looks like. Some, it seems, have already forgotten. For all Osborne's fine words - and the exultation with which they were received - a series of choices was made last week that could well see many millions of working families become materially worse off, including a large number of those who rely on a self-employed breadwinner. We have yet to see how that will play out.
We also know what bitterness looks like - it pervades your repetitive commenting of the same meme like the none too ripe lemons from the garden opposite my house.
I fear we cannot all offer the marvellously varied range of contributions - touching on so many different subjects - that you do. But, yes, I am bitter. I dislike Tory policy because I don't think it is good for the long-term well-being of the country and there is no-one on my side of the argument currently capable of presenting a measured, credible critique of the poor decisions that I believe are being made.
I totally agree with your first sentence. I am so glad you understood me.
Luke Akehurst has estimated that, when you account for the size of each individual CLP, Corbyn is doing better and Burnham worse than the headline figures suggest:
These are the figures by total 2010 membership of English and Welsh CLPs nominating the candidate:
But as we know, just 66 people were actually involved in the Broxtowe CLP nomination. If that is representative of levels in other CLPs, we are looking at very low numbers overall.
But all these CLP 'nominations' mean literally nothing. They're no more than an informal straw poll of those who turn up for a meeting. The nominations have already come from the MPs and the voting will be by individual ballot next month. Why the publicity given to them, or have I missed something?
Precisely. It could just be that far too much is being read into something that is not actually very representative of mainstream membership thinking. We just don't know.
The CLP nominations last time were broadly reflective of the final result, though
Whilst the agonisingly long leadership vacuum doesn't help Labour, I'm not sure that having a leader in place would have solved the problem. The basic issue is the same as that which dogged Gordon Brown at the end: they cannot decide whether they actually want to continuing blowing absurd amounts of taxpayers' money on welfare or not. Osborne hasn't really set any mine-fields, he has just proceeded on some sensible reforms which (as it happens) expose the absurdity of Labour's 'must cut down on cake but not this cake, and we're not saying which cake' position.
Osborne has made a series of choices which will have a negative consequence on a number of low income working families, but which will benefit other groups. Labour should have opposed those choices, while welcoming his conversion to the idea that all those in work should be paid a living wage and noting that the elasticity of deficit reduction targets indicates there is no pressing need to balance the books within a defined period of years - especially if it causes additional hardship to many millions of people who are already finding things tough. As you say, this is not a minefield set with a series of craftily arranged traps. What we have is a Tory chancellor pursuing Tory policies.
If people on low incomes are finding things tough on the still enormous largesse of the state, they ought to work more hours or spend less money. It sounds callous, and will never be said in public by a politician, but is echoed in the pubs, social clubs and front-rooms of working net tax-payers across the country.
My mother was born on a council estate in North Wales in the 50s; she knew poverty, hunger, want of clothing. She cannot believe the claims made over poverty in modern Britain today; in short she finds them laughable.
BIB: Is it really? Some recent polling was done, and it suggests that the public do not think those on low pay get too much benefits. I think the Tories could well be misjudging the public mood on this. While a large disgruntlement regarding welfare comes from 'scroungers' - those who do not work, I've not seen anything to suggest such disgruntlement comes from those who are low paid receiving benefits.
Only a few weeks ago the Leigh MP was the strong favourite, but the turmoil of his campaign has exposed his glaring inadequacies. As he flips and flops, he has revealed himself to be a man without bravery, conviction or authority, totally unsuited for any kind of leadership. As Heseltine once said damningly of Neil Kinnock, he is “not just a windbag but also a windsock.”
Goodness me, watching Roger Mullin, SNP, Kirkcaldy & Cowdenbeath, is so dour, he makes his predecessor Gordon Brown look positively exciting. I don't know whether is his older or younger but he looks like his brother.
I think George Osborne really needs to watch his hubris because his 'star' will start o wane eventually and I'm sure he will get a kicking on his way down. Men are so prone to this macho posturing and never learn, especially in politics.
Given that the vast majority of people don't watch or listen to politics, I expect that Labour 'may' get away with a lot of their present difficulties.
Whilst the agonisingly long leadership vacuum doesn't help Labour, I'm not sure that having a leader in place would have solved the problem. The basic issue is the same as that which dogged Gordon Brown at the end: they cannot decide whether they actually want to continuing blowing absurd amounts of taxpayers' money on welfare or not. Osborne hasn't really set any mine-fields, he has just proceeded on some sensible reforms which (as it happens) expose the absurdity of Labour's 'must cut down on cake but not this cake, and we're not saying which cake' position.
Osborne has made a series of choices which will have a negative consequence on a number of low income working families, but which will benefit other groups. Labour should have opposed those choices, while welcoming his conversion to the idea that all those in work should be paid a living wage and noting that the elasticity of deficit reduction targets indicates there is no pressing need to balance the books within a defined period of years - especially if it causes additional hardship to many millions of people who are already finding things tough. As you say, this is not a minefield set with a series of craftily arranged traps. What we have is a Tory chancellor pursuing Tory policies.
If people on low incomes are finding things tough on the still enormous largesse of the state, they ought to work more hours or spend less money. It sounds callous, and will never be said in public by a politician, but is echoed in the pubs, social clubs and front-rooms of working net tax-payers across the country.
My mother was born on a council estate in North Wales in the 50s; she knew poverty, hunger, want of clothing. She cannot believe the claims made over poverty in modern Britain today; in short she finds them laughable.
Yes, I understand that there are some net taxpayers who believe the low paid are feckless and undeserving. I also know that there are others who do not share those views.
George Osborne is a truly great strategist, up there with Caesar and Eisenhower.
Labour currently have all the nous and strategic abilities as Hannibal at Zama or Crassus at Carrhae.
Now that we are free of the lead weights that are the Lib Dems, we're seeing a true, One Nation Conservative government such as helping the poor with the living wage.
Honestly, this government is giving me the horn.
Peak hubris?
No, I'm just enjoying the moment, I'm fearful the Tory party will tear itself over the EU referendum within the next 18 months or so.
So you got to enjoy the fun whilst it lasts.
At some point in the next 4 years it's going to become very hard to get any real Tory legislation through parliament.
Cameron have this year and next year to get the big stuff through - incl. EVEL, BBC reform, human rights reform and fox hunting etc. - and they know that.
They also need to factor in the Lords playing silly buggers, which could delay the lot by a good year.
Dave has the nuclear option of appointing 500 new peers if the Lords want to pervert the will of the voters.
The voters elected a Tory government with a majority remember that you ermine clad unelected people.
I expect a good 50 or so appointments in the next year or so. It does make the HoL look ludicrous though.
All those (100+) Lib Dem Peers. The legacy of the coalition, and the ghost of Nick Clegg.
In a similar vein I think the political commentators also need to stop focusing on the SNP - eg. Iain Martin did a piece earlier peddling the line that the SNP are misleading folks around the mechanics of Westminster voting and wittering on about the "pairing" system, which for what its worth is completely irrelevant to last nights vote
Pairing is the reason the SNP wild claims about the vote are bollocks. Seems reasonable to say so.
Whilst the agonisingly long leadership vacuum doesn't help Labour, I'm not sure that having a leader in place would have solved the problem. The basic issue is the same as that which dogged Gordon Brown at the end: they cannot decide whether they actually want to continuing blowing absurd amounts of taxpayers' money on welfare or not. Osborne hasn't really set any mine-fields, he has just proceeded on some sensible reforms which (as it happens) expose the absurdity of Labour's 'must cut down on cake but not this cake, and we're not saying which cake' position.
Osborne has made a series of choices which will have a negative consequence on a number of low income working families, but which will benefit other groups. Labour should have opposed those choices, while welcoming his conversion to the idea that all those in work should be paid a living wage and noting that the elasticity of deficit reduction targets indicates there is no pressing need to balance the books within a defined period of years - especially if it causes additional hardship to many millions of people who are already finding things tough. As you say, this is not a minefield set with a series of craftily arranged traps. What we have is a Tory chancellor pursuing Tory policies.
If people on low incomes are finding things tough on the still enormous largesse of the state, they ought to work more hours or spend less money. It sounds callous, and will never be said in public by a politician, but is echoed in the pubs, social clubs and front-rooms of working net tax-payers across the country.
My mother was born on a council estate in North Wales in the 50s; she knew poverty, hunger, want of clothing. She cannot believe the claims made over poverty in modern Britain today; in short she finds them laughable.
Yes, I understand that there are some net taxpayers who believe the low paid are feckless and undeserving. I also know that there are others who do not share those views.
He did not say that at all. He said they would just have to make do. How did you get "feckless and undeserving" from that?
George Osborne is a truly great strategist, up there with Caesar and Eisenhower.
Labour currently have all the nous and strategic abilities as Hannibal at Zama or Crassus at Carrhae.
Now that we are free of the lead weights that are the Lib Dems, we're seeing a true, One Nation Conservative government such as helping the poor with the living wage.
Honestly, this government is giving me the horn.
Peak hubris?
No, that was our resident candidate Nick Palmer pre-election. I know he doesn't like us mentioning it now but day after day he'd post 'tick tock' and his impending 7% victory margin as the election approached.
I warned him it smacked of hubris at the time. It did, and it was.
So we should all know what hubris looks like. Some, it seems, have already forgotten. For all Osborne's fine words - and the exultation with which they were received - a series of choices was made last week that could well see many millions of working families become materially worse off, including a large number of those who rely on a self-employed breadwinner. We have yet to see how that will play out.
We also know what bitterness looks like - it pervades your repetitive commenting of the same meme like the none too ripe lemons from the garden opposite my house.
I fear we cannot all offer the marvellously varied range of contributions - touching on so many different subjects - that you do. But, yes, I am bitter. I dislike Tory policy because I don't think it is good for the long-term well-being of the country and there is no-one on my side of the argument currently capable of presenting a measured, credible critique of the poor decisions that I believe are being made.
Funny old world, I think it is good for the country, it should be good for those it effects in the long run (there will obviously be exceptions where someone suffers).
I just fail to see the humanity, kindness or vision in the existing system that limits work to 16 hours, is designed to work for and achieve the lowest common denominator and level everyone down to that. The proposed system sets a higher common denominator and asks people to level up to it. By definition that will make a bigger gap where some are less poor, or even better off than they were, and others will remain static and may loose a bit. May be that is what they need at the bottom of the scale in order to motivate them to change.
[Jeremy Corbyn] once claimed that he did not vote against the party willy-nilly, only being willing to defy the whip over three types of issues: war and peace, issues of liberty and socio-economic policy. Point out to him that this covers almost everything that the government could possibly do, and he laughs, 'I suppose it does.'
Luke Akehurst has estimated that, when you account for the size of each individual CLP, Corbyn is doing better and Burnham worse than the headline figures suggest:
These are the figures by total 2010 membership of English and Welsh CLPs nominating the candidate:
But as we know, just 66 people were actually involved in the Broxtowe CLP nomination. If that is representative of levels in other CLPs, we are looking at very low numbers overall.
But all these CLP 'nominations' mean literally nothing. They're no more than an informal straw poll of those who turn up for a meeting. The nominations have already come from the MPs and the voting will be by individual ballot next month. Why the publicity given to them, or have I missed something?
Precisely. It could just be that far too much is being read into something that is not actually very representative of mainstream membership thinking. We just don't know.
The CLP nominations last time were broadly reflective of the final result, though Although that's true, Labour have only had two leadership contests in twenty-one years (excluding this one). I don't know the data for the 1994 contest, so we don't know whether 2010 was an anomaly or not, or whether there were a lot more activists at local CLPs during the nomination process, than there are now.
George Osborne is a truly great strategist, up there with Caesar and Eisenhower.
Labour currently have all the nous and strategic abilities as Hannibal at Zama or Crassus at Carrhae.
Now that we are free of the lead weights that are the Lib Dems, we're seeing a true, One Nation Conservative government such as helping the poor with the living wage.
Honestly, this government is giving me the horn.
Peak hubris?
No, that was our resident candidate Nick Palmer pre-election. I know he doesn't like us mentioning it now but day after day he'd post 'tick tock' and his impending 7% victory margin as the election approached.
I warned him it smacked of hubris at the time. It did, and it was.
So we should all know what hubris looks like. Some, it seems, have already forgotten. For all Osborne's fine words - and the exultation with which they were received - a series of choices was made last week that could well see many millions of working families become materially worse off, including a large number of those who rely on a self-employed breadwinner. We have yet to see how that will play out.
We also know what bitterness looks like - it pervades your repetitive commenting of the same meme like the none too ripe lemons from the garden opposite my house.
That is unkind. SO actually has two memes, the other one being the self-flagellating one about how we all appreciate lefties such as himself are inherently wicked. To be fair, that is a step up from I_A's meme about us all wanting to exterminate left-wingers.
Whilst the agonisingly long leadership vacuum doesn't help Labour, I'm not sure that having a leader in place would have solved the problem. The basic issue is the same as that which dogged Gordon Brown at the end: they cannot decide whether they actually want to continuing blowing absurd amounts of taxpayers' money on welfare or not. Osborne hasn't really set any mine-fields, he has just proceeded on some sensible reforms which (as it happens) expose the absurdity of Labour's 'must cut down on cake but not this cake, and we're not saying which cake' position.
Osborne has made a series of choices which will have a negative consequence on a number of low income working families, but which will benefit other groups. Labour should have opposed those choices, while welcoming his conversion to the idea that all those in work should be paid a living wage and noting that the elasticity of deficit reduction targets indicates there is no pressing need to balance the books within a defined period of years - especially if it causes additional hardship to many millions of people who are already finding things tough. As you say, this is not a minefield set with a series of craftily arranged traps. What we have is a Tory chancellor pursuing Tory policies.
If people on low incomes are finding things tough on the still enormous largesse of the state, they ought to work more hours or spend less money. It sounds callous, and will never be said in public by a politician, but is echoed in the pubs, social clubs and front-rooms of working net tax-payers across the country.
My mother was born on a council estate in North Wales in the 50s; she knew poverty, hunger, want of clothing. She cannot believe the claims made over poverty in modern Britain today; in short she finds them laughable.
BIB: Is it really? Some recent polling was done, and it suggests that the public do not think those on low pay get too much benefits. I think the Tories could well be misjudging the public mood on this. While a large disgruntlement regarding welfare comes from 'scroungers' - those who do not work, I've not seen anything to suggest such disgruntlement comes from those who are low paid receiving benefits.
Exactly. Tories are IMO misreading the general public's anti-benefits feeling as some ideological economic laissez-faire attitude. It's not really IMO - people make a moral argument that the unemployed are too lazy to help themselves (which I don't agree with either but there it is), but people are quite happy to pay taxes to help those less fortunate than themselves as long as they feel those people actually are putting the effort in by working and are doing their best.
Whilst the agonisingly long leadership vacuum doesn't help Labour, I'm not sure that having a leader in place would have solved the problem. The basic issue is the same as that which dogged Gordon Brown at the end: they cannot decide whether they actually want to continuing blowing absurd amounts of taxpayers' money on welfare or not. Osborne hasn't really set any mine-fields, he has just proceeded on some sensible reforms which (as it happens) expose the absurdity of Labour's 'must cut down on cake but not this cake, and we're not saying which cake' position.
Osborne has made a series of choices which will have a negative consequence on a number of low income working families, but which will benefit other groups. Labour should have opposed those choices, while welcoming his conversion to the idea that all those in work should be paid a living wage and noting that the elasticity of deficit reduction targets indicates there is no pressing need to balance the books within a defined period of years - especially if it causes additional hardship to many millions of people who are already finding things tough. As you say, this is not a minefield set with a series of craftily arranged traps. What we have is a Tory chancellor pursuing Tory policies.
The "pressing need" is to get the debt down to pre-recession levels before the next recession.
Clearly GO does not agree.
Indeed. George Osborne is being a bit lax on this. But not madly lax, as all of the Labour candidates bar Kendall are.
Plus, we're due a recession soon, 'cause believe it or not, Gordon Brown didn't abolish boom and bust.
Then the Tory mantra of the long term economic plan won't look so attractive to the voters.
We're "due" a recession? Really? We've only just come out of the last one...
I'd say we're due a "boom" much more than a recession!
Saying we're due a recession soon is a bit like saying that the Yellowstone supervolcano is due to erupt soon. It's true but tells us nothing useful about when it's actually going to happen.
I'm told the land level there has risen. That may be a clue.
Whilst the agonisingly long leadership vacuum doesn't help Labour, I'm not sure that having a leader in place would have solved the problem. The basic issue is the same as that which dogged Gordon Brown at the end: they cannot decide whether they actually want to continuing blowing absurd amounts of taxpayers' money on welfare or not. Osborne hasn't really set any mine-fields, he has just proceeded on some sensible reforms which (as it happens) expose the absurdity of Labour's 'must cut down on cake but not this cake, and we're not saying which cake' position.
Osborne has made a series of choices which will have a negative consequence on a number of low income working families, but which will benefit other groups. Labour should have opposed those choices, while welcoming his conversion to the idea that all those in work should be paid a living wage and noting that the elasticity of deficit reduction targets indicates there is no pressing need to balance the books within a defined period of years - especially if it causes additional hardship to many millions of people who are already finding things tough. As you say, this is not a minefield set with a series of craftily arranged traps. What we have is a Tory chancellor pursuing Tory policies.
If people on low incomes are finding things tough on the still enormous largesse of the state, they ought to work more hours or spend less money. It sounds callous, and will never be said in public by a politician, but is echoed in the pubs, social clubs and front-rooms of working net tax-payers across the country.
My mother was born on a council estate in North Wales in the 50s; she knew poverty, hunger, want of clothing. She cannot believe the claims made over poverty in modern Britain today; in short she finds them laughable.
Yes, I understand that there are some net taxpayers who believe the low paid are feckless and undeserving. I also know that there are others who do not share those views.
He did not say that at all. He said they would just have to make do. How did you get "feckless and undeserving" from that?
I read his first sentence: "If people on low incomes are finding things tough on the still enormous largesse of the state, they ought to work more hours or spend less money". They are poor because of the choices they make.
Comments
I've been on the Trump betting bandwagon for about 2 months now, even before Trump was a candidate, and I'll tell you why.
Trump is the American Berlusconi, if Berlusconi dominated italian politics for almost 20 years through the power of TV, then so can Trump.
The extreme love-hate relationship between Trump and the media is his warp engine propelling him at enormous speeds forward, example: Last week CNN mentioned his name once every 5 minutes on average all day everyday for the whole week.
Sure they are blasting him, but on topics which the average republican actually agrees with Trump, and I'm not sure about the McCain comments because the average republican hates McCain ever since he called them wackos and crazies.
Case in point, the screaming DeMoine Register editorial, Iowa's leading newspaper, calling for Trump to drop out not because of his policies but because he's starving Jeb Bush from oxygen and prevents Kasich from being on the debates:
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/editorials/caucus/2015/07/20/donald-trump-end-campaign/30439253/
"In just five weeks, he has polluted the political waters to such an extent that serious candidates who actually have the credentials to serve as president can't get their message across to voters. In fact, some of them can't even win a spot in one of the upcoming debates, since those slots are reserved for candidates leading in the polls."
Now that's precisely the kind of media moaning that attracts republican voters to Trump.
And at the worst time possible in the midst of a leadership election.
At least the LD will never get a single vote out of it, because only 2.5 months ago they were in government with the Tories and the notion that they are the real opposition is laughable.
The left-wing block vote of LD (they are left wing now) + Lab + Green + PC + SDLP + SNP + Sylvia is 304 in this parliament.
Unless there's very poor whipping discipline, all controversial Tory measures should pass by a similar amount. Of course, that does mean keeping Tory rebel numbers to ten or less.
I disagree with Speedy that the Lib Dems don't have credibility on this - these exact cuts (both the total of £12bn, loss of youth housing benefit, ESA cuts, removing grants from poorer students, number of children restrictions) were opposed and blocked in government. Most of them weren't exactly secrets that the Tories were pushing for them - so very easy to talk about being consistent. Whereas Labour opposed e.g. restricting child benefit for higher rate taxpayers, and are now supposedly comfortable with these more punitive measures.
Hope you fully recover soon.
Really the Tories should be trying to keep them sweet. A time will come where they need their votes.
Now that the Tories are at liberty to impose their will on the country, the Lib Dems have, rightly, resumed their position as open and public opponents of the more damaging Tory policies. Impossible to leave this to the Labour leaders, who don´t know whether they are coming or going.
In what way is what Lucas said "thick"?
@commentisfree: George Osborne’s assault on welfare must not go unchallenged – @pollytoynbee http://t.co/iw9byHo1Jr http://t.co/WNf1LtmiKA
Labour currently have all the nous and strategic abilities as Hannibal at Zama or Crassus at Carrhae.
Now that we are free of the lead weights that are the Lib Dems, we're seeing a true, One Nation Conservative government such as helping the poor with the living wage.
Honestly, this government is giving me the horn.
Labour can't go on being this useless forever, nor can the Tories remain this awesome, surely?
This government is providing me with much political Viagra.
So you got to enjoy the fun whilst it lasts.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11753227/French-ferry-workers-block-access-to-Eurotunnel-with-pile-of-burning-tyres.html
Looks like Calais is a no go area AGAIN. Perhaps we need to consider routing all traffic through Belgium
Then the Tory mantra of the long term economic plan won't look so attractive to the voters.
Rather like the Kippers when they were predicting 100+ seats.
I'd say we're due a "boom" much more than a recession!
Here's a free tip to Labour, offered gratis, without strings: You need to start by working on a coherent position, instead you are making the mistake of working backwards from your focus-groups and concluding you have to avoid saying anything which might be unpopular with anyone. That simply leads you into the position of having nothing to say except for vacuuous platitudes which Osborne can easily expose as hollow and contradictory.
I warned him it smacked of hubris at the time. It did, and it was.
Eisenhower liberated mainland Europe at minimal cost. He did great work in Africa too.
Plus, I reckon, his sending of the 101st Airborne to escort the Little Rock Nine, did a lot for American race relations, made fans of Jim Crow look like numpties.
*nothing stronger than mango juice and pineapple juice.
So they know what they need to do to get elected (by the country) but not by the party...
Awesome!
Cameron have this year and next year to get the big stuff through - incl. EVEL, BBC reform, human rights reform and fox hunting etc. - and they know that.
They also need to factor in the Lords playing silly buggers, which could delay the lot by a good year.
I'm ever more convinced Mr Clipp is a computer generated LD. She doesn't understand the notion of the role of HM Opposition rather more nuanced than her silly opportunist tweet. I'm sure that Greens will benefit - I doubt that LDs will despite their efforts to airbrush History. Attacking the govt on benefit cuts is not the right territory for UKIP.
https://twitter.com/libdems/status/623486843720474624
Will anyone care ?
Let's face it, it wasn;t strategy that was required. It was masterly organisation and diplomacy. Many on the American side could barely bring themselves to be in the presence of Monty.
Slim would have been a much better choice.
IIRC 61% of Labour voters like the tax credit changes. No wonder the candidates are having a mare.
The voters elected a Tory government with a majority remember that you ermine clad unelected people.
Routing all ferry traffic via Belgium is a VERY good idea; has the added bonus of annoying the French an awful lot.
Given that they have been making this mistake since the winter of 2008, they do seem to be very slow learners.
@theobertram: Just to be clear: I'm not advocating we brush disagreement under the carpet. We need to argue this one out.
His argument is mainly with the ferocity with which Labour is attacking itself.
There is a line between healthy debate and delusional self harm...
Or, even better, you could keep people at the bottom of the band and give them a bonus fitting to their performance each year.
But as we know, just 66 people were actually involved in the Broxtowe CLP nomination. If that is representative of levels in other CLPs, we are looking at very low numbers overall.
I'm honestly glad that I don't vote Labour - this makes IDS/Redwood/Clark leadership shouts look appealing. http://labourlist.org/2015/07/are-there-any-patterns-in-the-clp-nominations-so-far/
In a similar vein I think the political commentators also need to stop focusing on the SNP - eg. Iain Martin did a piece earlier peddling the line that the SNP are misleading folks around the mechanics of Westminster voting and wittering on about the "pairing" system, which for what its worth is completely irrelevant to last nights vote:
http://www.capx.co/cynical-snp-is-peddling-untruths-on-welfare-vote/
Clearly Chukka and Jarvis correctly calculated that now is not the time... It will probably happen after Lab's next election defeat in 2010.
It's hardly 'airbrushing history' to oppose the same cuts in opposition that you prevented in Government.
I would not be surprised if all opposition parties, excluding Labour of course, benefited from a rudderless Labour party.
My mother was born on a council estate in North Wales in the 50s; she knew poverty, hunger, want of clothing. She cannot believe the claims made over poverty in modern Britain today; in short she finds them laughable.
But all these CLP 'nominations' mean literally nothing. They're no more than an informal straw poll of those who turn up for a meeting. The nominations have already come from the MPs and the voting will be by individual ballot next month. Why the publicity given to them, or have I missed something?
Precisely. It could just be that far too much is being read into something that is not actually very representative of mainstream membership thinking. We just don't know.
Jarvis I think had genuine personal reasons. He's a bit more like Cameron. Not firm on any Labour belief but could be a great PR/comms/public face of Labour.
[Jeremy Corbyn] once claimed that he did not vote against the party willy-nilly, only being willing to defy the whip over three types of issues: war and peace, issues of liberty and socio-economic policy. Point out to him that this covers almost everything that the government could possibly do, and he laughs, 'I suppose it does.'
twitter.com/philipjcowley/status/623393283759325184
The CLP nominations last time were broadly reflective of the final result, though
I think George Osborne really needs to watch his hubris because his 'star' will start o wane eventually and I'm sure he will get a kicking on his way down. Men are so prone to this macho posturing and never learn, especially in politics.
Given that the vast majority of people don't watch or listen to politics, I expect that Labour 'may' get away with a lot of their present difficulties.
All those (100+) Lib Dem Peers. The legacy of the coalition, and the ghost of Nick Clegg.
I just fail to see the humanity, kindness or vision in the existing system that limits work to 16 hours, is designed to work for and achieve the lowest common denominator and level everyone down to that. The proposed system sets a higher common denominator and asks people to level up to it. By definition that will make a bigger gap where some are less poor, or even better off than they were, and others will remain static and may loose a bit. May be that is what they need at the bottom of the scale in order to motivate them to change.
Dishonest party gets whacked at the polls and fails to learn lesson - oh well.
Although that's true, Labour have only had two leadership contests in twenty-one years (excluding this one). I don't know the data for the 1994 contest, so we don't know whether 2010 was an anomaly or not, or whether there were a lot more activists at local CLPs during the nomination process, than there are now.