Not sure that having Liam Byrne on board is a good idea given the aid he provided to the Coalition with his stupid note.
Oh, to have that hanging over one's head for the rest of one's career - I'll bet he gets plenty of tough talk from people even now about that.
Liam Byrne deserves everything that gets thrown at him and more, for having so little political nous about how toxic that note could be. It encapsulated everything about voter reservations of Labour's economic position in a six word soundbite. "I'm sorry. There is no money". It was visceral, the centre-piece of the final election leaflet the Tories sent out. I could easily believe it cost Labour 20 seats.
Keir Starmer's been quiet as far as I know. He ruled himself out this time round as he'd only just been elected, but might be in a decent position to pick up any pieces if needed in a couple of years? Done a big serious job outside politics (just), gravitas etc etc. What are his odds anyone for leader after next?
I've been asking myself the same question as a moderate member of the Labour Party. I wouldn't use the term Blairite and I doubt that few others would either. I don't intend to leave but may have to if Corbyn becomes an embarrasment. Under FPTP starting a new party is a non-starter. I think that this whole issue highlights how FPTP makes odd bedfellows within parties. Not sure what to do. This country needs a viable opposition and the current system isn't providing one. Depressing.
Yes, it's very difficult to start a new successful Party in the UK. (Respect, NF, BNP, SWP, Greens, UKIP - any more?) Only the SNP can be said to be successful, in their geographical area. Also from an individual MP's point of view, switching parties is fraught with problems and is usually career-limiting. Switching from FPTP to a non-party list system (STV is my favourite) would free things up, allowing new parties to get some representation and giving individual MPs a chance to move parties with the possibility of remaining as an MP. So that's what Labour should do - support PR. It's not an election winner in itself, but is popular and could persuade some Greens, LibDems, UKIP etc to 'lend' votes in individual constituencies at the next election. Then they need to deliver it when in power.
The SNP are 81 years old. To get where they are now has been a long slog.
I think Labour were the last "new party" to reach power before long after being established.
Didn't realise they were that old (or older if you take the two parties that merged to form them). However they only got their first MP in 1967. It makes my point even stronger.
The SNP got their first MP in 1945 (Motherwell by-election, lost again at the general election)...
Not sure that having Liam Byrne on board is a good idea given the aid he provided to the Coalition with his stupid note.
Oh, to have that hanging over one's head for the rest of one's career - I'll bet he gets plenty of tough talk from people even now about that.
Liam Byrne deserves everything that gets thrown at him and more, for having so little political nous about how toxic that note could be. It encapsulated everything about voter reservations of Labour's economic position in a six word soundbite. "I'm sorry. There is no money". It was visceral, the centre-piece of the final election leaflet the Tories sent out. I could easily believe it cost Labour 20 seats.
That Cameron literally made wielding a copy of it his signature move during the campaign speaks volumes. It got some stick at times, but he would not have kept doing it the entire time if he didn't have evidence it was working as a prop.
Although I think Byrne increased his majority? Funny that - like Clegg keeping his seat when all around him colleagues suffered due to him (not only him of course, they were complicit in what the party decided even if Clegg was the leader)
Excellent piece with one exception, I can't imagine many young labour politicians thriving in the private sector.
It's not a high bar. If you have connections, can tick boxes, talk the lingo and make "savings" there'll always be a well paid place for you in a British business.
In a quango, a charity or the public sector yes, but these people have no knowledge of or interest in the private sector.
Not sure you understand what a Blairite is.
Yes I do, its a champagne socialist who despite never having worked in the private sector pretends to understand how it works. A Blairite will then go on to make good money from the public purse whilst rubbing shoulders with the real wealth creators. Some might consider law as the private sector but that depends who your clients are.
I've been asking myself the same question as a moderate member of the Labour Party. I wouldn't use the term Blairite and I doubt that few others would either. I don't intend to leave but may have to if Corbyn becomes an embarrasment. Under FPTP starting a new party is a non-starter. I think that this whole issue highlights how FPTP makes odd bedfellows within parties. Not sure what to do. This country needs a viable opposition and the current system isn't providing one. Depressing.
Yes, it's very difficult to start a new successful Party in the UK. (Respect, NF, BNP, SWP, Greens, UKIP - any more?) Only the SNP can be said to be successful, in their geographical area. Also from an individual MP's point of view, switching parties is fraught with problems and is usually career-limiting. Switching from FPTP to a non-party list system (STV is my favourite) would free things up, allowing new parties to get some representation and giving individual MPs a chance to move parties with the possibility of remaining as an MP. So that's what Labour should do - support PR. It's not an election winner in itself, but is popular and could persuade some Greens, LibDems, UKIP etc to 'lend' votes in individual constituencies at the next election. Then they need to deliver it when in power.
The SNP are 81 years old. To get where they are now has been a long slog.
I think Labour were the last "new party" to reach power before long after being established.
Didn't realise they were that old (or older if you take the two parties that merged to form them). However they only got their first MP in 1967. It makes my point even stronger.
The SNP got their first MP in 1945 (Motherwell by-election, lost again at the general election)...
Good point and thanks for correcting me. I was using the SNP as an exception, it appears that they aren't, which makes my original point stronger.
Not sure that having Liam Byrne on board is a good idea given the aid he provided to the Coalition with his stupid note.
Oh, to have that hanging over one's head for the rest of one's career - I'll bet he gets plenty of tough talk from people even now about that.
Liam Byrne deserves everything that gets thrown at him and more, for having so little political nous about how toxic that note could be. It encapsulated everything about voter reservations of Labour's economic position in a six word soundbite. "I'm sorry. There is no money". It was visceral, the centre-piece of the final election leaflet the Tories sent out. I could easily believe it cost Labour 20 seats.
That Cameron literally made wielding a copy of it his signature move during the campaign speaks volumes. It got some stick at times, but he would not have kept doing it the entire time if he didn't have evidence it was working as a prop.
Although I think Byrne increased his majority? Funny that - like Clegg keeping his seat when all around him colleagues suffered due to him (not only him of course, they were complicit in what the party decided even if Clegg was the leader)
It's a very good counter-example to those people who are saying that the public aren't paying much attention now and Labour's current troubles will be forgotten in six months' time. Some things stick.
Keir Starmer's been quiet as far as I know. He ruled himself out this time round as he'd only just been elected, but might be in a decent position to pick up any pieces if needed in a couple of years? Done a big serious job outside politics (just), gravitas etc etc. What are his odds anyone for leader after next?
Not that quiet. He's one of 47 Labour MPs who have signed a letter supporting Andy Burnham's stance on the Welfare Bill which ends: "Andy has said that unless the Government make major changes, then as leader, he will oppose this Bill at every opportunity when it is considered by MPs in the Autumn. He will have our whole-hearted support in doing so."
FPT The Kipper Factor could be significant - that's a 'new' Party = got 4mish voters. If they got Labour defectors, how many would be re-elected today?
The SDP were a complete leap in the dark, UKIP could be an alternative/or a Blue Labour Party that attempted to get those voters back onboard.
Re: Conditions for a split from Labour. The problem is the past failure of the SDP. However if that is overcome then the conditions for a new centrist party are better than 1981. We have a "liberal" party now led by someone as left wing as Corbyn. So if Labour went for Corbyn then there is room for a Centrist party. The LDs and Labour may as well merge if Corbyn takes over.
Outside of 2 or 3 MPs I cannot see large defections of UKIP from the MPs. But their voters is a different issue. A Corbyn led party would drive more WWC to UKIP.
Looking at the mechanics of AV, it seems to me that if Corbyn gets:-
a) at least 40% on 1st prefs b) at least a 10% lead over his nearest rival c) no worse than around a 2.7 ratio of transfers against/for him
he's the next Leader of the Labour Party...
Good analysis.
The script was Corbyn was supposed to crash and burn. He was supposed to be last in round 1, like Abbott. He was only in the contest to let the left have their say, and then have it demonstrated to them that there was no support for a shift to the left.
Instead of this, because of the strong support that he has gained, even if he loses Corbyn and his supporters will get concessions from whoever is elected as leader. (Unless of course they want to provoke a civil war to force the left out of the party)
Not sure that having Liam Byrne on board is a good idea given the aid he provided to the Coalition with his stupid note.
Oh, to have that hanging over one's head for the rest of one's career - I'll bet he gets plenty of tough talk from people even now about that.
Liam Byrne deserves everything that gets thrown at him and more, for having so little political nous about how toxic that note could be. It encapsulated everything about voter reservations of Labour's economic position in a six word soundbite. "I'm sorry. There is no money". It was visceral, the centre-piece of the final election leaflet the Tories sent out. I could easily believe it cost Labour 20 seats.
That Cameron literally made wielding a copy of it his signature move during the campaign speaks volumes. It got some stick at times, but he would not have kept doing it the entire time if he didn't have evidence it was working as a prop.
Although I think Byrne increased his majority? Funny that - like Clegg keeping his seat when all around him colleagues suffered due to him (not only him of course, they were complicit in what the party decided even if Clegg was the leader)
It's a very good counter-example to those people who are saying that the public aren't paying much attention now and Labour's current troubles will be forgotten in six months' time. Some things stick.
The narrative on Labour's economic incompetence had already been established, by the time that note came to prominence five years ago - the note itself wasn't the thing which caused Labour to be seen as economically incompetent.
Jezza is the only leadership candidate who can provide a genuine alternative to the puffed-up posh-boy Cameron!
Plus he knows LOTS about trains.....
I did the Welland Viaduct between Corby and Oakham on Monday - there are only two passenger trains that travel over it that DON'T run either first thing in the morning or last thing at night. Got the 17:27 from Oakham, and rode it through Corby to Kettering, and then got the 19:06 from Kettering to Melton Mowbray.
Looking at the mechanics of AV, it seems to me that if Corbyn gets:-
a) at least 40% on 1st prefs b) at least a 10% lead over his nearest rival c) no worse than around a 2.7 ratio of transfers against/for him
he's the next Leader of the Labour Party...
Good analysis.
The script was Corbyn was supposed to crash and burn. He was supposed to be last in round 1, like Abbott. He was only in the contest to let the left have their say, and then have it demonstrated to them that there was no support for a shift to the left.
Instead of this, because of the strong support that he has gained, even if he loses Corbyn and his supporters will get concessions from whoever is elected as leader. (Unless of course they want to provoke a civil war to force the left out of the party)
Not only that but last time when one D Milliband finished first in the first round and E Milliband squeaked home in the final round it left Ed rather damaged from the start despite the fact that it was mainly considered humorous as it was a bonkers battle between two brothers.
It is imaginable that we could have a first round that reads 1 Corbyn, 2 Burnham, 3 Cooper, 4 Kendall with Kendall's transfers boosting Cooper to second in the second round and then winning it in the final round. Corbyn could finish losing the race with over 40% in round one and Cooper could win it with about 25% in round one.
That will not be a laughing matter between two brothers. As much as the left may like the idea of voting reform, Cooper would be damaged and less legitimate from day one. Corbyn would be the "legitimate winner" in the eyes of many in the left.
A piece in the Guardian on imagining that some people who voted Tory are good people would be a good thing for Labour to do, and I was heartened that the first comment below it I saw was not an insult rejecting the very idea. The second one was though.
I do think the analysis of the strategies of the non-Corbyn contenders was pretty good, and the point about background not being enough to override a perception of greater competence for the economy though - I do think some people struggle with the fact that the attack on Tories for being posh elitists won't work on its own, as shown by the victory of an Old Etonian.
Looking at the mechanics of AV, it seems to me that if Corbyn gets:-
a) at least 40% on 1st prefs b) at least a 10% lead over his nearest rival c) no worse than around a 2.7 ratio of transfers against/for him
he's the next Leader of the Labour Party...
Good analysis.
The script was Corbyn was supposed to crash and burn. He was supposed to be last in round 1, like Abbott. He was only in the contest to let the left have their say, and then have it demonstrated to them that there was no support for a shift to the left.
Instead of this, because of the strong support that he has gained, even if he loses Corbyn and his supporters will get concessions from whoever is elected as leader. (Unless of course they want to provoke a civil war to force the left out of the party)
It is imaginable that we could have a first round that reads 1 Corbyn, 2 Burnham, 3 Cooper, 4 Kendall with Kendall's transfers boosting Cooper to second in the second round and then winning it in the final round. Corbyn could finish losing the race with over 40% in round one and Cooper could win it with about 25% in round one.
That will not be a laughing matter between two brothers. As much as the left may like the idea of voting reform, Cooper would be damaged and less legitimate from day one. Corbyn would be the "legitimate winner" in the eyes of many in the left.
All things are possible, but that would require an against/for Corbyn ratio of transfers of about 3.5, which seems unlikely...
Not sure that having Liam Byrne on board is a good idea given the aid he provided to the Coalition with his stupid note.
Oh, to have that hanging over one's head for the rest of one's career - I'll bet he gets plenty of tough talk from people even now about that.
Liam Byrne deserves everything that gets thrown at him and more, for having so little political nous about how toxic that note could be. It encapsulated everything about voter reservations of Labour's economic position in a six word soundbite. "I'm sorry. There is no money". It was visceral, the centre-piece of the final election leaflet the Tories sent out. I could easily believe it cost Labour 20 seats.
That Cameron literally made wielding a copy of it his signature move during the campaign speaks volumes. It got some stick at times, but he would not have kept doing it the entire time if he didn't have evidence it was working as a prop.
Although I think Byrne increased his majority? Funny that - like Clegg keeping his seat when all around him colleagues suffered due to him (not only him of course, they were complicit in what the party decided even if Clegg was the leader)
It's a very good counter-example to those people who are saying that the public aren't paying much attention now and Labour's current troubles will be forgotten in six months' time. Some things stick.
The narrative on Labour's economic incompetence had already been established, by the time that note came to prominence five years ago - the note itself wasn't the thing which caused Labour to be seen as economically incompetent.
No, but it was that rare, perfect prop which encapsulated a political message the Tories wanted to get across - Labour left us with no money, and they see it as a non serious matter - and allowed an instant, definitive defence with some amount of what appears to be evidence to any attacks on Tory cuts, any cuts. It reinforced the Tory message continually, was often brought up, and was the centrepiece of Cameron's personal pitch to voters wherever he went. It didn't cause the narrative, but it did a lot to give it legs in a visceral way.
Labour minister said there was no money left - it's a powerful message, and the only defence to someone asking Labour if that was said is to call it a joke (which it was) or try to counter the existing narrative, the former being unwise as it seems dismissive, and the latter very difficult and too late.
"The thing is the Guardian isn't really left of centre. It supported Clegg in 2010. It feigns left wing support like the Independent, because it knows that's the only customer base remaining after Murdoch et al swallow up everything else. But when it comes to the hard decisions, the Guardian and the others will always drift quietly to the right, because they are, ultimately, a part of The Establishment."
"Yup, usually I would expect at least a mix of opinions. It's like there's a three-line whip from the editors' office to "get Corbyn". Since the paper advocated supporting the LibDems in 2010 the pose of having the party's best interests at heart is a bit suspect, to say the least."
"Amazing how many of these journalists think they have the right to tell the Labour Party activists how to think and vote when the activists day after day speak to the real people, are living alongside those suffering from the consequences of the tory policies. And guess what - based on that evidence of people crying out for someone to speak for them, to bring change - they will be voting for Jeremy Corbyn! At least he offers hope and change."
It's brave of a newspaper to take on its readership.
"The thing is the Guardian isn't really left of centre. It supported Clegg in 2010. It feigns left wing support like the Independent, because it knows that's the only customer base remaining after Murdoch et al swallow up everything else. But when it comes to the hard decisions, the Guardian and the others will always drift quietly to the right, because they are, ultimately, a part of The Establishment."
"Yup, usually I would expect at least a mix of opinions. It's like there's a three-line whip from the editors' office to "get Corbyn". Since the paper advocated supporting the LibDems in 2010 the pose of having the party's best interests at heart is a bit suspect, to say the least."
"Amazing how many of these journalists think they have the right to tell the Labour Party activists how to think and vote when the activists day after day speak to the real people, are living alongside those suffering from the consequences of the tory policies. And guess what - based on that evidence of people crying out for someone to speak for them, to bring change - they will be voting for Jeremy Corbyn! At least he offers hope and change."
It's brave of a newspaper to take on its readership.
Ah, CIFers, always entertaining (I find I'm a bit board of the Telegraph ranters at present).
If I read the first paragraph right, 'The Establishment' is always right wing, therefore presumably any government is right wing, and any MPs who wan to form part of a government is right wing.
Though I suspect that, somehow, such people think veteran MPs steeped in the Westminster system are not 'the establishment' even when they are running 'the establishment'.
No, but it was that rare, perfect prop which encapsulated a political message the Tories wanted to get across - Labour left us with no money, and they see it as a non serious matter - and allowed an instant, definitive defence with some amount of what appears to be evidence to any attacks on Tory cuts, any cuts. It reinforced the Tory message continually, was often brought up, and was the centrepiece of Cameron's personal pitch to voters wherever he went. It didn't cause the narrative, but it did a lot to give it legs in a visceral way.
Labour minister said there was no money left - it's a powerful message, and the only defence to someone asking Labour if that was said is to call it a joke (which it was) or try to counter the existing narrative, the former being unwise as it seems dismissive, and the latter very difficult and too late.
I see the note as something which made Labour look stupid at the time, but it was not this fundamentally fatal incident. What was, was Labour's failure previously to counter the Conservative narrative, and their failure afterwards to build a coherent economic policy. Looking back on the QT with the party leaders' what seems to be most fatal for Labour, is not Cameron bringing up the note, but Ed Miliband's inability to accept Labour spent too much, which prompted a signifcantly negative reaction from the audience.
No, but it was that rare, perfect prop which encapsulated a political message the Tories wanted to get across - Labour left us with no money, and they see it as a non serious matter - and allowed an instant, definitive defence with some amount of what appears to be evidence to any attacks on Tory cuts, any cuts. It reinforced the Tory message continually, was often brought up, and was the centrepiece of Cameron's personal pitch to voters wherever he went. It didn't cause the narrative, but it did a lot to give it legs in a visceral way.
Labour minister said there was no money left - it's a powerful message, and the only defence to someone asking Labour if that was said is to call it a joke (which it was) or try to counter the existing narrative, the former being unwise as it seems dismissive, and the latter very difficult and too late.
I see the note as something which made Labour look stupid at the time, but it was not this fundamentally fatal incident. What was, was Labour's failure previously to counter the Conservative narrative, and their failure afterwards to build a coherent economic policy. Looking back on the QT with the party leaders' what seems to be most fatal for Labour, is not Cameron bringing up the note, but Ed Miliband's inability to accept Labour spent too much, which prompted a signifcantly negative reaction from the audience.
I'd certainly accept that as more significant, it went against the narrative that Labour failed to combat, but nevertheless, as antifrank said, it was an incident that people did remember, which is unusual, and was symbolic enough that it was able to represent the narrative. The lack of that would not in itself be fatal I am sure, but it's handy to have
"The thing is the Guardian isn't really left of centre. It supported Clegg in 2010. It feigns left wing support like the Independent, because it knows that's the only customer base remaining after Murdoch et al swallow up everything else. But when it comes to the hard decisions, the Guardian and the others will always drift quietly to the right, because they are, ultimately, a part of The Establishment."
"Yup, usually I would expect at least a mix of opinions. It's like there's a three-line whip from the editors' office to "get Corbyn". Since the paper advocated supporting the LibDems in 2010 the pose of having the party's best interests at heart is a bit suspect, to say the least."
"Amazing how many of these journalists think they have the right to tell the Labour Party activists how to think and vote when the activists day after day speak to the real people, are living alongside those suffering from the consequences of the tory policies. And guess what - based on that evidence of people crying out for someone to speak for them, to bring change - they will be voting for Jeremy Corbyn! At least he offers hope and change."
It's brave of a newspaper to take on its readership.
Ah, CIFers, always entertaining (I find I'm a bit board of the Telegraph ranters at present).
If I read the first paragraph right, 'The Establishment' is always right wing, therefore presumably any government is right wing, and any MPs who wan to form part of a government is right wing.
Though I suspect that, somehow, such people think veteran MPs steeped in the Westminster system are not 'the establishment' even when they are running 'the establishment'.
I think Establishments tend to conservative - they aren't always conservative though. It's interesting that CIFers reference Murdoch. Murdoch has in many ways seen himself, and his publications as anti-establishment, often pursuing a right-wing populism. But I guess it's also true in doing that, he has become a part of the establishment - even if it's a different kind to one he dislikes. Still, it takes a special kind of delusion to believe The Guardian is a part of a right-wing conspiracy.
Labour's problem is that after fifteen years of anti-austerity, evil Tory hysteria spouted by the leadership and the commentariat, the party's activists now believe all this stupid crap, hence their liking for Corbyn
Labour are in the position of a drug lord who discovers that all his street dealers are useless, because they're getting high on his crystal meth
No, but it was that rare, perfect prop which encapsulated a political message the Tories wanted to get across - Labour left us with no money, and they see it as a non serious matter - and allowed an instant, definitive defence with some amount of what appears to be evidence to any attacks on Tory cuts, any cuts. It reinforced the Tory message continually, was often brought up, and was the centrepiece of Cameron's personal pitch to voters wherever he went. It didn't cause the narrative, but it did a lot to give it legs in a visceral way.
Labour minister said there was no money left - it's a powerful message, and the only defence to someone asking Labour if that was said is to call it a joke (which it was) or try to counter the existing narrative, the former being unwise as it seems dismissive, and the latter very difficult and too late.
I see the note as something which made Labour look stupid at the time, but it was not this fundamentally fatal incident. What was, was Labour's failure previously to counter the Conservative narrative, and their failure afterwards to build a coherent economic policy. Looking back on the QT with the party leaders' what seems to be most fatal for Labour, is not Cameron bringing up the note, but Ed Miliband's inability to accept Labour spent too much, which prompted a signifcantly negative reaction from the audience.
I'd certainly accept that as more significant, it went against the narrative that Labour failed to combat, but nevertheless, as antifrank said, it was an incident that people did remember, which is unusual, and was symbolic enough that it was able to represent the narrative. The lack of that would not in itself be fatal I am sure, but it's handy to have
If people remembered it, why did Cameron have to keep on bringing it up?
"The thing is the Guardian isn't really left of centre. It supported Clegg in 2010. It feigns left wing support like the Independent, because it knows that's the only customer base remaining after Murdoch et al swallow up everything else. But when it comes to the hard decisions, the Guardian and the others will always drift quietly to the right, because they are, ultimately, a part of The Establishment."
"Yup, usually I would expect at least a mix of opinions. It's like there's a three-line whip from the editors' office to "get Corbyn". Since the paper advocated supporting the LibDems in 2010 the pose of having the party's best interests at heart is a bit suspect, to say the least."
"Amazing how many of these journalists think they have the right to tell the Labour Party activists how to think and vote when the activists day after day speak to the real people, are living alongside those suffering from the consequences of the tory policies. And guess what - based on that evidence of people crying out for someone to speak for them, to bring change - they will be voting for Jeremy Corbyn! At least he offers hope and change."
It's brave of a newspaper to take on its readership.
Ah, CIFers, always entertaining (I find I'm a bit board of the Telegraph ranters at present).
If I read the first paragraph right, 'The Establishment' is always right wing, therefore presumably any government is right wing, and any MPs who wan to form part of a government is right wing.
Though I suspect that, somehow, such people think veteran MPs steeped in the Westminster system are not 'the establishment' even when they are running 'the establishment'.
'A left wing Labour leader helped to power by Tories with their £3 memberships, who then avoids scaring the horses and becomes PM after the Tories tear themselves apart over Europe?'
Your having a laugh, Corbyn even without half his baggage is unelectable.
£3.00 well spent to have a complete loon elected as Labour leader.
No, but it was that rare, perfect prop which encapsulated a political message the Tories wanted to get across - Labour left us with no money, and they see it as a non serious matter - and allowed an instant, definitive defence with some amount of what appears to be evidence to any attacks on Tory cuts, any cuts. It reinforced the Tory message continually, was often brought up, and was the centrepiece of Cameron's personal pitch to voters wherever he went. It didn't cause the narrative, but it did a lot to give it legs in a visceral way.
Labour minister said there was no money left - it's a powerful message, and the only defence to someone asking Labour if that was said is to call it a joke (which it was) or try to counter the existing narrative, the former being unwise as it seems dismissive, and the latter very difficult and too late.
I see the note as something which made Labour look stupid at the time, but it was not this fundamentally fatal incident. What was, was Labour's failure previously to counter the Conservative narrative, and their failure afterwards to build a coherent economic policy. Looking back on the QT with the party leaders' what seems to be most fatal for Labour, is not Cameron bringing up the note, but Ed Miliband's inability to accept Labour spent too much, which prompted a signifcantly negative reaction from the audience.
I'd certainly accept that as more significant, it went against the narrative that Labour failed to combat, but nevertheless, as antifrank said, it was an incident that people did remember, which is unusual, and was symbolic enough that it was able to represent the narrative. The lack of that would not in itself be fatal I am sure, but it's handy to have
That collective sharp intake of breath of the audience in shock when Milliband said "no" Labour hadn't spent too much was the moment I started to get my confidence we were going to win, despite all the challenges that had so often been highlighted here (Lib Dem collapse, boundaries favourable to Labour etc)
It was a collossal mistake. All the more shocking as Milliband had done surprisingly well in the Channel 4 grilling by Jeremy Paxman by simply saying "yes that was wrong but we've learnt" to all questions of "was that a mistake" previously. To simply say "no" was living in an Egyptian river.
If so, this represents a shift by the French government.
I can't access all the article, but Euro zone government could operate one level without Treaty change, that is, government without institutions. The shareholder's agreement, if you like.
"The thing is the Guardian isn't really left of centre. It supported Clegg in 2010. It feigns left wing support like the Independent, because it knows that's the only customer base remaining after Murdoch et al swallow up everything else. But when it comes to the hard decisions, the Guardian and the others will always drift quietly to the right, because they are, ultimately, a part of The Establishment."
"Yup, usually I would expect at least a mix of opinions. It's like there's a three-line whip from the editors' office to "get Corbyn". Since the paper advocated supporting the LibDems in 2010 the pose of having the party's best interests at heart is a bit suspect, to say the least."
"Amazing how many of these journalists think they have the right to tell the Labour Party activists how to think and vote when the activists day after day speak to the real people, are living alongside those suffering from the consequences of the tory policies. And guess what - based on that evidence of people crying out for someone to speak for them, to bring change - they will be voting for Jeremy Corbyn! At least he offers hope and change."
It's brave of a newspaper to take on its readership.
Ah, CIFers, always entertaining (I find I'm a bit board of the Telegraph ranters at present).
If I read the first paragraph right, 'The Establishment' is always right wing, therefore presumably any government is right wing, and any MPs who wan to form part of a government is right wing.
Though I suspect that, somehow, such people think veteran MPs steeped in the Westminster system are not 'the establishment' even when they are running 'the establishment'.
Excellent piece with one exception, I can't imagine many young labour politicians thriving in the private sector.
It's not a high bar. If you have connections, can tick boxes, talk the lingo and make "savings" there'll always be a well paid place for you in a British business.
In a quango, a charity or the public sector yes, but these people have no knowledge of or interest in the private sector.
Not sure you understand what a Blairite is.
Yes I do, its a champagne socialist who despite never having worked in the private sector pretends to understand how it works. A Blairite will then go on to make good money from the public purse whilst rubbing shoulders with the real wealth creators. Some might consider law as the private sector but that depends who your clients are.
I don't know what you mean about wealth creators, but I understand capitalism pretty well, where accumulating wealth is ridiculously easy if you are already loaded. Unless you are an idiot, it is almost impossible to lose money when you've got it.
I've been asking myself the same question as a moderate member of the Labour Party. I wouldn't use the term Blairite and I doubt that few others would either. I don't intend to leave but may have to if Corbyn becomes an embarrasment. Under FPTP starting a new party is a non-starter. I think that this whole issue highlights how FPTP makes odd bedfellows within parties. Not sure what to do. This country needs a viable opposition and the current system isn't providing one. Depressing.
Yes, it's very difficult to start a new successful Party in the UK. (Respect, NF, BNP, SWP, Greens, UKIP - any more?) Only the SNP can be said to be successful, in their geographical area. Also from an individual MP's point of view, switching parties is fraught with problems and is usually career-limiting. Switching from FPTP to a non-party list system (STV is my favourite) would free things up, allowing new parties to get some representation and giving individual MPs a chance to move parties with the possibility of remaining as an MP. So that's what Labour should do - support PR. It's not an election winner in itself, but is popular and could persuade some Greens, LibDems, UKIP etc to 'lend' votes in individual constituencies at the next election. Then they need to deliver it when in power.
The SNP are 81 years old. To get where they are now has been a long slog.
I think Labour were the last "new party" to reach power before long after being established.
Didn't realise they were that old (or older if you take the two parties that merged to form them). However they only got their first MP in 1967. It makes my point even stronger.
The SNP got their first MP in 1945 (Motherwell by-election, lost again at the general election)...
Good point and thanks for correcting me. I was using the SNP as an exception, it appears that they aren't, which makes my original point stronger.
I knew that 1945 stat too, but Rod Crosby knows everything, well everything worth knowing anyway. My other comment is that the low turnout from poor working class might improve if they have someone of their own ilk to vote for, as happened in Scot with SNP, around 7% higher across board from memory, and where turnout was far higher even in poorish urban areas.
I thought the Guardian article was very measured in trying to gently point out the horror Anne Perkins feels - hence waving her Tribune colours very conspicuously, and she still gets blasted in the comments.
I think he's absolutely right. They simply don't know what it really means right now.
If so, this represents a shift by the French government.
Can you give us a summary for those who don't have an FT subscription please?
"the French president has embraced an idea first formulated by the former European Commission boss [Jacques Delors] — like him, a socialist — for a “eurozone government”. He would bolster it with a budget and a parliament."
"French proposals will be presented by the end of summer, according to Prime Minister Manuel Valls."
If so, this represents a shift by the French government.
Well, there's no detail in the article, so it's impossible to say, although it seems likely that it would. In any case, I think that this will be one of many calls for tighter Eurozone integration: if they want to keep the Euro (and they do), they haven't really got much choice. Cameron needs to take as much advantage as he can of this.
Where I'd take issue with that article is that I don't think that this is Hollande simply playing internal politics. I think he really means it, not least because of the recent Greek fiasco. He wants a (French-dominated, naturellement) Eurozone pseudo-government not only because the current Eurozone governance is feeble and dangerous, but also because the alternative is German hegemony.
If so, this represents a shift by the French government.
Can you give us a summary for those who don't have an FT subscription please?
"the French president has embraced an idea first formulated by the former European Commission boss [Jacques Delors] — like him, a socialist — for a “eurozone government”. He would bolster it with a budget and a parliament."
"French proposals will be presented by the end of summer, according to Prime Minister Manuel Valls."
If so, this represents a shift by the French government.
Can you give us a summary for those who don't have an FT subscription please?
"the French president has embraced an idea first formulated by the former European Commission boss [Jacques Delors] — like him, a socialist — for a “eurozone government”. He would bolster it with a budget and a parliament."
"French proposals will be presented by the end of summer, according to Prime Minister Manuel Valls."
Never going to happen. The French themselves would never wear it, they're proud of being French first and foremost.
There's a reason why France is perpetually the only nation never to sing in English at Eurovision.
"The thing is the Guardian isn't really left of centre. It supported Clegg in 2010. It feigns left wing support like the Independent, because it knows that's the only customer base remaining after Murdoch et al swallow up everything else. But when it comes to the hard decisions, the Guardian and the others will always drift quietly to the right, because they are, ultimately, a part of The Establishment."
"Yup, usually I would expect at least a mix of opinions. It's like there's a three-line whip from the editors' office to "get Corbyn". Since the paper advocated supporting the LibDems in 2010 the pose of having the party's best interests at heart is a bit suspect, to say the least."
"Amazing how many of these journalists think they have the right to tell the Labour Party activists how to think and vote when the activists day after day speak to the real people, are living alongside those suffering from the consequences of the tory policies. And guess what - based on that evidence of people crying out for someone to speak for them, to bring change - they will be voting for Jeremy Corbyn! At least he offers hope and change."
It's brave of a newspaper to take on its readership.
Ah, CIFers, always entertaining (I find I'm a bit board of the Telegraph ranters at present).
If I read the first paragraph right, 'The Establishment' is always right wing, therefore presumably any government is right wing, and any MPs who wan to form part of a government is right wing.
Though I suspect that, somehow, such people think veteran MPs steeped in the Westminster system are not 'the establishment' even when they are running 'the establishment'.
I think Establishments tend to conservative - they aren't always conservative though. It's interesting that CIFers reference Murdoch. Murdoch has in many ways seen himself, and his publications as anti-establishment, often pursuing a right-wing populism. But I guess it's also true in doing that, he has become a part of the establishment - even if it's a different kind to one he dislikes. Still, it takes a special kind of delusion to believe The Guardian is a part of a right-wing conspiracy.
People see things through their own lense. To a left wing person, the opressors will be right wing, squashing the poor under their heel. To a right wing person, the opressors will be communists, determined to implement a grim, monolithic corporatist undemocratic socialist dystopia. Neither opinion is quite true or quite false, because they are skewed by trying to fit them into an outmoded left-right political spectrum.
There is actually an argument - if you are a Liz Kendall supporter - to put Jeremy Corbyn as your second preference i.e. that he proves such a disaster that the party comes to its senses and votes for Liz after JC is deposed. Burnham and Cooper, on the other hand, would mean Liz would not have a chance to become leader, at least before 2020.
In that case, JC may become leader when LK is knocked out and her votes distributed.
Right, but this argument then surely applies in spades to Yvette Cooper supporters. She could be the Michael Howard character. Not everybody's preferred role model, but beggars can't be choosers.
If so, this represents a shift by the French government.
Can you give us a summary for those who don't have an FT subscription please?
Its Hollande's suggestion to have a Eurozone govt (headquartered in Paris no doubt) - but really its his effort to set out his stall for the Presidential elections. You can get about 20 free articles with the FT ( a month?)
If so, this represents a shift by the French government.
Can you give us a summary for those who don't have an FT subscription please?
"the French president has embraced an idea first formulated by the former European Commission boss [Jacques Delors] — like him, a socialist — for a “eurozone government”. He would bolster it with a budget and a parliament."
"French proposals will be presented by the end of summer, according to Prime Minister Manuel Valls."
Hollande and the unelected Euro Zsars never consider what the voters in Europe want. Think they may be heading for a big shock in the next two or three years
No, but it was that rare, perfect prop which encapsulated a political message the Tories wanted to get across - Labour left us with no money, and they see it as a non serious matter - and allowed an instant, definitive defence with some amount of what appears to be evidence to any attacks on Tory cuts, any cuts. It reinforced the Tory message continually, was often brought up, and was the centrepiece of Cameron's personal pitch to voters wherever he went. It didn't cause the narrative, but it did a lot to give it legs in a visceral way.
Labour minister said there was no money left - it's a powerful message, and the only defence to someone asking Labour if that was said is to call it a joke (which it was) or try to counter the existing narrative, the former being unwise as it seems dismissive, and the latter very difficult and too late.
I see the note as something which made Labour look stupid at the time, but it was not this fundamentally fatal incident. What was, was Labour's failure previously to counter the Conservative narrative, and their failure afterwards to build a coherent economic policy. Looking back on the QT with the party leaders' what seems to be most fatal for Labour, is not Cameron bringing up the note, but Ed Miliband's inability to accept Labour spent too much, which prompted a signifcantly negative reaction from the audience.
I'd certainly accept that as more significant, it went against the narrative that Labour failed to combat, but nevertheless, as antifrank said, it was an incident that people did remember, which is unusual, and was symbolic enough that it was able to represent the narrative. The lack of that would not in itself be fatal I am sure, but it's handy to have
If people remembered it, why did Cameron have to keep on bringing it up?
By people I mean political people referenced it often enough because it was an incident worth preserving in the political consciousness, unlike most such events, and that filters down a bit to less politically conscious people at GE time. As for bringing it up, that's to reinforce the message in a physical fashion to regular people. He would not have done it as much as he did if it didn't work, by and large
I thought the Guardian article was very measured in trying to gently point out the horror Anne Perkins feels - hence waving her Tribune colours very conspicuously, and she still gets blasted in the comments.
I think he's absolutely right. They simply don't know what it really means right now.
If so, this represents a shift by the French government.
Can you give us a summary for those who don't have an FT subscription please?
Its Hollande's suggestion to have a Eurozone govt (headquartered in Paris no doubt) - but really its his effort to set out his stall for the Presidential elections. You can get about 20 free articles with the FT ( a month?)
Labour's problem is that after fifteen years of anti-austerity, evil Tory hysteria spouted by the leadership and the commentariat, the party's activists now believe all this stupid crap, hence their liking for Corbyn
Labour are in the position of a drug lord who discovers that all his street dealers are useless, because they're getting high on his crystal meth
Mr T - Labour's 'austerity' mantra does not wash. It's a knee jerk phrase to complain about any cuts anytime anywhere. Osborne has in fact regularly phased back, smoothed out the cuts. He has been very wise when faced with a very very difficult situation - but half the cuts remain. Labour jump around like electrocuted marionettes squealing 'no austerity', but never say how they would cut the deficit they left behind.
So the fruits of Kinnock & Blair's herculean efforts to make Lab electable is a generation of activists who don't care abt winning elecs ...
And I suspect one reason they don't care much about winning elecs is because they don't realise how awful impotence & repeated defeat feels
There's an opera in here. Or maybe even a Ring cycle. Do we have any good puns to that effect?
The Thieving Chancellor, starring George Osborne and Gordon Brown Carmen (or "The Lure of Ministerial Limos") Boris Godunov to be PM I Pagliacci (aka "The SNP") The Marriage of Convenience, starring Tony Blair and Gordon Brown Blairitedämmerung A Masked Ed Balls The Farce of Destiny (aka "The election of IDS as Tory Leader") Macbeth (aka "The Alex Salmond Story") Die Walküre (warriors selected from an all-women shortlist)
No, but it was that rare, perfect prop which encapsulated a political message the Tories wanted to get across - Labour left us with no money, and they see it as a non serious matter - and allowed an instant, definitive defence with some amount of what appears to be evidence to any attacks on Tory cuts, any cuts. It reinforced the Tory message continually, was often brought up, and was the centrepiece of Cameron's personal pitch to voters wherever he went. It didn't cause the narrative, but it did a lot to give it legs in a visceral way.
Labour minister said there was no money left - it's a powerful message, and the only defence to someone asking Labour if that was said is to call it a joke (which it was) or try to counter the existing narrative, the former being unwise as it seems dismissive, and the latter very difficult and too late.
I see the note as something which made Labour look stupid at the time, but it was not this fundamentally fatal incident. What was, was Labour's failure previously to counter the Conservative narrative, and their failure afterwards to build a coherent economic policy. Looking back on the QT with the party leaders' what seems to be most fatal for Labour, is not Cameron bringing up the note, but Ed Miliband's inability to accept Labour spent too much, which prompted a signifcantly negative reaction from the audience.
That collective sharp intake of breath of the audience in shock when Milliband said "no" Labour hadn't spent too much was the moment I started to get my confidence we were going to win, despite all the challenges that had so often been highlighted here (Lib Dem collapse, boundaries favourable to Labour etc)
It was a collossal mistake. All the more shocking as Milliband had done surprisingly well in the Channel 4 grilling by Jeremy Paxman by simply saying "yes that was wrong but we've learnt" to all questions of "was that a mistake" previously. To simply say "no" was living in an Egyptian river.
Apparently that was not how the answer he was supposed to give to that type of question had been scripted - he was supposed to do a preamble bit explaining why, in that context, no he didn't think they'd spent too much. By leading with a flat no and then trying to explain, it was too late for the audience (the gasped reaction was so stunned, it appeared too genuine to be purely would be tory spokesman reacting, which was why it was effective)
@johnplunkett149: BBC news exec tweeted that Laura Kuenssberg is new BBC political editor, then deleted it. LK apparently not been told...
Kuenssberg would be a fantastic choice. I hope it's her.
She would. I always assumed she's take up the cudgels before she defected briefly to ITV News. Since then, I thought Landale was a shoo-in.
Feel sorry for Landale. I like him. He's better than Laura K I think. But probably considered too "safe" and "Tory", whereas Laura is probably a bit lefty.
If so, this represents a shift by the French government.
Can you give us a summary for those who don't have an FT subscription please?
Its Hollande's suggestion to have a Eurozone govt (headquartered in Paris no doubt) - but really its his effort to set out his stall for the Presidential elections. You can get about 20 free articles with the FT ( a month?)
There is a suitable building in Strasbourg which is hardly used, IIRC...
Jean Monnet started talks in 1939; matters became more earnest in 1940 as French defeat loomed.
The British opposed a French surrender, and in particular the possible loss of the French Navy to the Germans, and so sought to keep Reynaud in office. On 14 June British diplomat Robert Vansittart and Morton wrote with Monnet and his deputy René Pleven a draft "Franco-British Union" proposal. They hoped that such a union would help Reynaud persuade his cabinet to continue the war from North Africa, but Churchill was skeptical when on 15 June the British War Cabinet discussed the proposal and a similar one from Secretary of State for India Leo Amery. On the morning of 16 June, the War Cabinet agreed to the French armistice request on the condition that the French fleet sail to British harbors. This disappointed Reynaud, who had hoped to use a British rejection to persuade his cabinet to continue to fight.
Reynaud supporter Charles de Gaulle had arrived in London earlier that day, however, and Monnet told him about the proposed union. De Gaulle convinced Churchill that "some dramatic move was essential to give Reynaud the support which he needed to keep his Government in the war". The Frenchman then called Reynaud and told him that the British prime minister proposed a union between their countries, an idea which Reynaud immediately supported. De Gaulle, Monnet, Vansittart, and Pleven quickly agreed to a document proclaiming a joint citizenship, foreign trade, currency, war cabinet, and military command. Churchill withdrew the armistice approval, and at 3 p.m. the War Cabinet met again to consider the union document. Despite the radical nature of the proposal, Churchill and the ministers recognized the need for a dramatic act to encourage the French and reinforce Reynaud's support within his cabinet before it met again at 5pm.
The final "Declaration of union" approved by the British War Cabinet stated that: "France and Great Britain shall no longer be two nations, but one Franco-British Union. The constitution of the Union will provide for joint organs of defence, foreign, financial and economic policies. Every citizen of France will enjoy immediately citizenship of Great Britain, every British subject will become a citizen of France."
Churchill and De Gaulle called Reynaud to tell him about the document, and they arranged for a joint meeting of the two governments in Concarneau the next day. ...
Other French leaders were less enthusiastic, however. At the 5 p.m. cabinet meeting, many called it a British "last minute plan" to steal its colonies... While President Albert Lebrun and some others were supportive, the cabinet's opposition stunned Reynaud. He resigned that evening ... and later called the failure of the union the "greatest disappointment of my political career".
@johnplunkett149: BBC news exec tweeted that Laura Kuenssberg is new BBC political editor, then deleted it. LK apparently not been told...
Kuenssberg would be a fantastic choice. I hope it's her.
She would. I always assumed she's take up the cudgels before she defected briefly to ITV News. Since then, I thought Landale was a shoo-in.
Feel sorry for Landale. I like him. He's better than Laura K I think. But probably considered too "safe" and "Tory", whereas Laura is probably a bit lefty.
I assumed Laura's defection was partly to set her up for the BBC top job when it came round. The leave and return gambit.
I thought the Guardian article was very measured in trying to gently point out the horror Anne Perkins feels - hence waving her Tribune colours very conspicuously, and she still gets blasted in the comments.
I think he's absolutely right. They simply don't know what it really means right now.
Interesting thought to send the shivers up the spines of the PB Tory's, Voters might actually want a socialist government.
Over the past 30 odd years, we have had right wing and wanna be right wing governments who, to put it politely, have disappointed the majority of people in the UK who decided there was no point in voting for the same daleks.
In Scotland, we have a supposedly left wing party in power and it looks like, for the moment at least, that they will get a thumping majority in next years election.
Let's be quite honest here, Labour supporters have a choice between 3 plastic toys saying whatever is pre-recorded, according to the focus groups, once the string coming out of their backs is pulled and Corbyn.
Salmond has changed the political landscape. Sturgeon is continuing the process. Maybe the Tories should think on this before they get too gleeful.
Interesting thought to send the shivers up the spines of the PB Tory's, Voters might actually want a socialist government.
Over the past 30 odd years, we have had right wing and wanna be right wing governments who, to put it politely, have disappointed the majority of people in the UK who decided there was no point in voting for the same daleks.
In Scotland, we have a supposedly left wing party in power and it looks like, for the moment at least, that they will get a thumping majority in next years election.
Let's be quite honest here, Labour supporters have a choice between 3 plastic toys saying whatever is pre-recorded, according to the focus groups, once the string coming out of their backs is pulled and Corbyn.
Salmond has changed the political landscape. Sturgeon is continuing the process. Maybe the Tories should think on this before they get too gleeful.
Feel sorry for Landale. I like him. He's better than Laura K I think. But probably considered too "safe" and "Tory", whereas Laura is probably a bit lefty.
I'd be interested to see a new poll of the general public of the Labour race. I honestly wouldn't be shocked to see Corbyn in first place, by default, with about 15-20% of the vote (with the rest all getting derisory scores, and "Don't Know" romping home with 60%).
In Scotland, we have a supposedly left wing party in power and it looks like, for the moment at least, that they will get a thumping majority in next years election.
Operating under the benign economic conditions of a Tory chancellor
When socialists run out of other peoples' money, it gets ugly
Interesting thought to send the shivers up the spines of the PB Tory's, Voters might actually want a socialist government.
Over the past 30 odd years, we have had right wing and wanna be right wing governments who, to put it politely, have disappointed the majority of people in the UK who decided there was no point in voting for the same daleks.
In Scotland, we have a supposedly left wing party in power and it looks like, for the moment at least, that they will get a thumping majority in next years election.
Let's be quite honest here, Labour supporters have a choice between 3 plastic toys saying whatever is pre-recorded, according to the focus groups, once the string coming out of their backs is pulled and Corbyn.
Salmond has changed the political landscape. Sturgeon is continuing the process. Maybe the Tories should think on this before they get too gleeful.
After 12 years of austerity, and with the books balanced the voters may well fancy a bit of financial splurge in 2020 from that nice Mr Santa Corbyn.
Interesting thought to send the shivers up the spines of the PB Tory's, Voters might actually want a socialist government.
Over the past 30 odd years, we have had right wing and wanna be right wing governments who, to put it politely, have disappointed the majority of people in the UK who decided there was no point in voting for the same daleks.
In Scotland, we have a supposedly left wing party in power and it looks like, for the moment at least, that they will get a thumping majority in next years election.
Let's be quite honest here, Labour supporters have a choice between 3 plastic toys saying whatever is pre-recorded, according to the focus groups, once the string coming out of their backs is pulled and Corbyn.
Salmond has changed the political landscape. Sturgeon is continuing the process. Maybe the Tories should think on this before they get too gleeful.
After 12 years of austerity, and with the books balanced the voters may well fancy a bit of financial splurge in 2020 from that nice Mr Santa Corbyn.
I had thought, with the economy picking up, and despite concerns of their suitability, the public would elect Labour this time around on that basis - maybe I was 5 years early?
Feel sorry for Landale. I like him. He's better than Laura K I think. But probably considered too "safe" and "Tory", whereas Laura is probably a bit lefty.
Interesting thought to send the shivers up the spines of the PB Tory's, Voters might actually want a socialist government.
Over the past 30 odd years, we have had right wing and wanna be right wing governments who, to put it politely, have disappointed the majority of people in the UK who decided there was no point in voting for the same daleks.
In Scotland, we have a supposedly left wing party in power and it looks like, for the moment at least, that they will get a thumping majority in next years election.
Let's be quite honest here, Labour supporters have a choice between 3 plastic toys saying whatever is pre-recorded, according to the focus groups, once the string coming out of their backs is pulled and Corbyn.
Salmond has changed the political landscape. Sturgeon is continuing the process. Maybe the Tories should think on this before they get too gleeful.
I don't think that the majority of people are disappointed. There is a blase assumption that the reason people don't vote is that they're disappointed, typically twinned with the notion that doing whatever the speaker suggests would motivate them to vote - I find this tremendously naive.
I think the majority of non-voters don't vote not because they care and are upset, but because they frankly don't care. Which is not because they're disappointed, but rather because they're contentedly living out their own lives.
Its the same as the economy rising up the opinion polls as a key issue whenever the economy is doing badly, only to drop off once the economy is both doing well and seen to be doing well again. A rise of people not caring about politics is as likely to be because politics itself is done well as because its done badly. If it was done badly then people might care more to change it.
George Eaton @georgeeaton 41m41 minutes ago Shadow cabinet minister tells me that almost all members would refuse to serve under Corbyn http://bit.ly/1CPXuTU
Labour members will surely step back from the brink when threatened with losing titans like Chris Leslie, Tristram Hunt and Rachel Reeves.
If so, this represents a shift by the French government.
Can you give us a summary for those who don't have an FT subscription please?
Its Hollande's suggestion to have a Eurozone govt (headquartered in Paris no doubt) - but really its his effort to set out his stall for the Presidential elections. You can get about 20 free articles with the FT ( a month?)
Good use for Strasbourg I'd suggest.
For all the superstate posturing of Eurocrats, one of the EU's biggest issues is that it doesn't have the right powers and structures in the right places to effectively carry out the bigger functions that have already been given to it by the nations. If it is unwieldy and only partly democratic it is because national governments everywhere in Europe have always seen the nation as coming first. The EU is what its member states have made it, and they have not made it into something that can administer the Eurozone in a meaningful way, that remains subject to the part-time, nation-state centred council of ministers. If France's proposal is something to makes EU administration fit for purpose on the relatively few issues where something stronger is needed then good. It should not involve scope creep or transfers of powers from anything other than issues where the council of ministers / eurozone group continue to fail.
George Eaton @georgeeaton 41m41 minutes ago Shadow cabinet minister tells me that almost all members would refuse to serve under Corbyn http://bit.ly/1CPXuTU
Labour members will surely step back from the brink when threatened with losing titans like Chris Leslie, Tristram Hunt and Rachel Reeves.
Who cares about them, Tristram Hunt is so useless he couldn't even get nominated.
George Eaton @georgeeaton 41m41 minutes ago Shadow cabinet minister tells me that almost all members would refuse to serve under Corbyn http://bit.ly/1CPXuTU
Labour members will surely step back from the brink when threatened with losing titans like Chris Leslie, Tristram Hunt and Rachel Reeves.
Interesting thought to send the shivers up the spines of the PB Tory's, Voters might actually want a socialist government.
Over the past 30 odd years, we have had right wing and wanna be right wing governments who, to put it politely, have disappointed the majority of people in the UK who decided there was no point in voting for the same daleks.
In Scotland, we have a supposedly left wing party in power and it looks like, for the moment at least, that they will get a thumping majority in next years election.
Let's be quite honest here, Labour supporters have a choice between 3 plastic toys saying whatever is pre-recorded, according to the focus groups, once the string coming out of their backs is pulled and Corbyn.
Salmond has changed the political landscape. Sturgeon is continuing the process. Maybe the Tories should think on this before they get too gleeful.
I don't think that the majority of people are disappointed. There is a blase assumption that the reason people don't vote is that they're disappointed, typically twinned with the notion that doing whatever the speaker suggests would motivate them to vote - I find this tremendously naive.
I think the majority of non-voters don't vote not because they care and are upset, but because they frankly don't care. Which is not because they're disappointed, but rather because they're contentedly living out their own lives.
Its the same as the economy rising up the opinion polls as a key issue whenever the economy is doing badly, only to drop off once the economy is both doing well and seen to be doing well again. A rise of people not caring about politics is as likely to be because politics itself is done well as because its done badly. If it was done badly then people might care more to change it.
There may be something in that. Certainly I think it is not as simple as 'people are disappointed and angry'. Even if someone thinks they should be, there doesn't appear to be some imminent disruption from lack of contentment. If anything, politicians seem overly concerned sucha situation might develop and attempt, not always successfully, to relate to people, engage with them and so on.
George Eaton @georgeeaton 41m41 minutes ago Shadow cabinet minister tells me that almost all members would refuse to serve under Corbyn http://bit.ly/1CPXuTU
Labour members will surely step back from the brink when threatened with losing titans like Chris Leslie, Tristram Hunt and Rachel Reeves.
Not a game-changer in the slightest
The membership will not be worried about seeing the many lightweights in the Shadow Cabinet disappear.
If they want a Corbyn shadow cabinet, they will not want it packed with the likes of the Leslies, Hunts or Reeves!
They will want their own Pure Labour people in there.
Without wishing to blow his trumpet, I have to say that these Antifrank op-ed and thoroughly researched background pieces are as good as anyone writing about politics in the broad-sheets at the moment. Many thanks - and to OGH, for cajoling Antifrank into producing them at such a surprisingly regular rate!
Very much seconded.
If we had poster of the year, Antifrank would be a shoo-in.
I think what we are looking in various countries, not only in the UK and the Labour party specifically, is a huge appetite from the electorate for populism.
George Eaton @georgeeaton 41m41 minutes ago Shadow cabinet minister tells me that almost all members would refuse to serve under Corbyn http://bit.ly/1CPXuTU
Labour members will surely step back from the brink when threatened with losing titans like Chris Leslie, Tristram Hunt and Rachel Reeves.
LOL!
Though genuinely why would Corbyn with a mandate of winning leadership want people like Hunt in his shadown cabinet? Did Blair put Corbyn in his shadow cabinet?
Surely if we have a Corbyn-led Labour party he should promote like-minded MPs who'd be willing to serve under his leadership anyway and relegate those that wouldn't to be part of an awkward squad backbench. We could have a shadow cabinet filled with the likes of Abbott, Skinner etc
In Scotland, we have a supposedly left wing party in power and it looks like, for the moment at least, that they will get a thumping majority in next years election.
Operating under the benign economic conditions of a Tory chancellor
When socialists run out of other peoples' money, it gets ugly
Exactly. What taxes have this supposedly-left wing government in Scotland actually put up? The SNP are a pure have-your-cake-and-eat-it party that want to spend, spend, spend without taxing. It is a child-like, pocket money government that is ran there rather than a credible government.
I like how George Osborne and David Cameron keep reminding the SNP in Westminster now that they have the ability to raise taxes and that they should "put up or shut up". Until they actually do put up taxes we can't judge the SNP as a regular left-wing party and once they do we should see how popular they continue to be.
Instead of having a separate eurozone parliament, why don't they simply use the existing parliament. When debating & voting on eurozone-only matters the representatives from non-euro countries could be excluded. They could call it something like "Eurozone Votes for Eurozone Laws" (EVEL).
George Eaton @georgeeaton 41m41 minutes ago Shadow cabinet minister tells me that almost all members would refuse to serve under Corbyn http://bit.ly/1CPXuTU
Labour members will surely step back from the brink when threatened with losing titans like Chris Leslie, Tristram Hunt and Rachel Reeves.
LOL!
Though genuinely why would Corbyn with a mandate of winning leadership want people like Hunt in his shadown cabinet? Did Blair put Corbyn in his shadow cabinet?
Surely if we have a Corbyn-led Labour party he should promote like-minded MPs who'd be willing to serve under his leadership anyway and relegate those that wouldn't to be part of an awkward squad backbench. We could have a shadow cabinet filled with the likes of Abbott, Skinner etc
Skinner in the shadow front bench? He'd have to give up his old seat!
In Scotland, we have a supposedly left wing party in power and it looks like, for the moment at least, that they will get a thumping majority in next years election.
Operating under the benign economic conditions of a Tory chancellor
When socialists run out of other peoples' money, it gets ugly
Exactly. What taxes have this supposedly-left wing government in Scotland actually put up? The SNP are a pure have-your-cake-and-eat-it party that want to spend, spend, spend without taxing. It is a child-like, pocket money government that is ran there rather than a credible government.
I like how George Osborne and David Cameron keep reminding the SNP in Westminster now that they have the ability to raise taxes and that they should "put up or shut up". Until they actually do put up taxes we can't judge the SNP as a regular left-wing party and once they do we should see how popular they continue to be.
And we know they won't do that - because then they would have to accept responsibility for their own fiscal decisions. They won't be able to blame the evil Westminsterites for the mess.
Exactly. What taxes have this supposedly-left wing government in Scotland actually put up? The SNP are a pure have-your-cake-and-eat-it party that want to spend, spend, spend without taxing. It is a child-like, pocket money government that is ran there rather than a credible government.
I like how George Osborne and David Cameron keep reminding the SNP in Westminster now that they have the ability to raise taxes and that they should "put up or shut up". Until they actually do put up taxes we can't judge the SNP as a regular left-wing party and once they do we should see how popular they continue to be.
No, no, you've misunderstood completely. The SNP are very keen indeed on putting up taxes to finance spending on Scotland.
I think what we are looking in various countries, not only in the UK and the Labour party specifically, is a huge appetite from the electorate for populism.
Really? Is the Cameron majority government that got elected this year a part of that? It has not really been populist.
Millibland was populist jumping from bandwagon to bandwagon only to be judged not credible by the electorate and lost. If Labour stare into the abyss now and retreat deeper into populism then that isn't necessarily because the UK as a whole wants it to do that, or will reward it for doing so.
Corbyn has said he wants a "broad church" and I don't doubt he means what he says, since he always does.
But, in terms of providing a robust opposition to the Tories, it makes Corbyn's life as leader much easier if the likes of Reeves and Hunt keep themselves out of the way.
George Eaton @georgeeaton 41m41 minutes ago Shadow cabinet minister tells me that almost all members would refuse to serve under Corbyn http://bit.ly/1CPXuTU
Labour members will surely step back from the brink when threatened with losing titans like Chris Leslie, Tristram Hunt and Rachel Reeves.
LOL!
Though genuinely why would Corbyn with a mandate of winning leadership want people like Hunt in his shadown cabinet? Did Blair put Corbyn in his shadow cabinet?
Surely if we have a Corbyn-led Labour party he should promote like-minded MPs who'd be willing to serve under his leadership anyway and relegate those that wouldn't to be part of an awkward squad backbench. We could have a shadow cabinet filled with the likes of Abbott, Skinner etc
Skinner in the shadow front bench? He'd have to give up his old seat!
Could be one way to resolve it. Rather than having his old seat at the front of the awkward squad bench, the SNP can have that and he can sit at the front of the front bench (made up of the old awkward squad).
Why does there need to be a Eurozone parliament? The Eurozone nations already agree a joint position and just force the legislation through the EU institutions.
Comments
Although I think Byrne increased his majority? Funny that - like Clegg keeping his seat when all around him colleagues suffered due to him (not only him of course, they were complicit in what the party decided even if Clegg was the leader)
I was using the SNP as an exception, it appears that they aren't, which makes my original point stronger.
a) at least 40% on 1st prefs
b) at least a 10% lead over his nearest rival
c) no worse than around a 2.7 ratio of transfers against/for him
he's the next Leader of the Labour Party...
1. there IS a stack of money left
2. it belongs to someone else
3. we can get it
will prove very popular with the labour grassroots.
Not many Labour supporters want to understand that...
Clearly not one of the Blairite Tendency then.
The script was Corbyn was supposed to crash and burn. He was supposed to be last in round 1, like Abbott.
He was only in the contest to let the left have their say, and then have it demonstrated to them that there was no support for a shift to the left.
Instead of this, because of the strong support that he has gained, even if he loses Corbyn and his supporters will get concessions from whoever is elected as leader. (Unless of course they want to provoke a civil war to force the left out of the party)
First time I set foot in Rutland
It is imaginable that we could have a first round that reads 1 Corbyn, 2 Burnham, 3 Cooper, 4 Kendall with Kendall's transfers boosting Cooper to second in the second round and then winning it in the final round. Corbyn could finish losing the race with over 40% in round one and Cooper could win it with about 25% in round one.
That will not be a laughing matter between two brothers. As much as the left may like the idea of voting reform, Cooper would be damaged and less legitimate from day one. Corbyn would be the "legitimate winner" in the eyes of many in the left.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/21/labour-tory-voters
I do think the analysis of the strategies of the non-Corbyn contenders was pretty good, and the point about background not being enough to override a perception of greater competence for the economy though - I do think some people struggle with the fact that the attack on Tories for being posh elitists won't work on its own, as shown by the victory of an Old Etonian.
Labour minister said there was no money left - it's a powerful message, and the only defence to someone asking Labour if that was said is to call it a joke (which it was) or try to counter the existing narrative, the former being unwise as it seems dismissive, and the latter very difficult and too late.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/22/labour-party-members-jeremy-corbyn
The cifers are unimpressed:
"The thing is the Guardian isn't really left of centre. It supported Clegg in 2010. It feigns left wing support like the Independent, because it knows that's the only customer base remaining after Murdoch et al swallow up everything else. But when it comes to the hard decisions, the Guardian and the others will always drift quietly to the right, because they are, ultimately, a part of The Establishment."
"Yup, usually I would expect at least a mix of opinions. It's like there's a three-line whip from the editors' office to "get Corbyn". Since the paper advocated supporting the LibDems in 2010 the pose of having the party's best interests at heart is a bit suspect, to say the least."
"Amazing how many of these journalists think they have the right to tell the Labour Party activists how to think and vote when the activists day after day speak to the real people, are living alongside those suffering from the consequences of the tory policies. And guess what - based on that evidence of people crying out for someone to speak for them, to bring change - they will be voting for Jeremy Corbyn! At least he offers hope and change."
It's brave of a newspaper to take on its readership.
If I read the first paragraph right, 'The Establishment' is always right wing, therefore presumably any government is right wing, and any MPs who wan to form part of a government is right wing.
Though I suspect that, somehow, such people think veteran MPs steeped in the Westminster system are not 'the establishment' even when they are running 'the establishment'.
Another excellent piece, antifrank.
Fifteen years of anti-austerity, really? The crash happened in 2008 - seven years ago! If people remembered it, why did Cameron have to keep on bringing it up?
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c0c81c3e-3046-11e5-91ac-a5e17d9b4cff.html?ftcamp=published_links/rss/brussels/feed//product#axzz3gdHJWM33
If so, this represents a shift by the French government.
"What are you rebelling against?"
"What have you got?"
Whomever called this bit of the Labour Party toddlers is right.
'A left wing Labour leader helped to power by Tories with their £3 memberships, who then avoids scaring the horses and becomes PM after the Tories tear themselves apart over Europe?'
Your having a laugh, Corbyn even without half his baggage is unelectable.
£3.00 well spent to have a complete loon elected as Labour leader.
It was a collossal mistake. All the more shocking as Milliband had done surprisingly well in the Channel 4 grilling by Jeremy Paxman by simply saying "yes that was wrong but we've learnt" to all questions of "was that a mistake" previously. To simply say "no" was living in an Egyptian river.
So the fruits of Kinnock & Blair's herculean efforts to make Lab electable is a generation of activists who don't care abt winning elecs ...
And I suspect one reason they don't care much about winning elecs is because they don't realise how awful impotence & repeated defeat feels
There's an opera in here. Or maybe even a Ring cycle. Do we have any good puns to that effect?
anyway. My other comment is that the low turnout from poor working class might improve if they have someone of their own ilk to vote for, as happened in Scot with SNP, around 7% higher across board from memory, and where turnout was far higher even in poorish urban areas.
I think he's absolutely right. They simply don't know what it really means right now.
A Very British Coup has been on my mind a lot recently for some reason
"French proposals will be presented by the end of summer, according to Prime Minister Manuel Valls."
Where I'd take issue with that article is that I don't think that this is Hollande simply playing internal politics. I think he really means it, not least because of the recent Greek fiasco. He wants a (French-dominated, naturellement) Eurozone pseudo-government not only because the current Eurozone governance is feeble and dangerous, but also because the alternative is German hegemony.
Just shows how very different we are as nations.
There's a reason why France is perpetually the only nation never to sing in English at Eurovision.
You can get about 20 free articles with the FT ( a month?)
http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/moj-proposes-new-round-of-court-fee-rises/5050176.article?utm_source=dispatch&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=GAZ220715
The hike earlier this year was indefensible, to double the fee sheer beggars belief.
I might join the Labour Party.... oh, hang on, I did that earlier (temporarily)! :-)
Taxi..
Carmen (or "The Lure of Ministerial Limos")
Boris Godunov to be PM
I Pagliacci (aka "The SNP")
The Marriage of Convenience, starring Tony Blair and Gordon Brown
Blairitedämmerung
A Masked Ed Balls
The Farce of Destiny (aka "The election of IDS as Tory Leader")
Macbeth (aka "The Alex Salmond Story")
Die Walküre (warriors selected from an all-women shortlist)
Feel sorry for Landale. I like him. He's better than Laura K I think. But probably considered too "safe" and "Tory", whereas Laura is probably a bit lefty.
Jean Monnet started talks in 1939; matters became more earnest in 1940 as French defeat loomed.
Over the past 30 odd years, we have had right wing and wanna be right wing governments who, to put it politely, have disappointed the majority of people in the UK who decided there was no point in voting for the same daleks.
In Scotland, we have a supposedly left wing party in power and it looks like, for the moment at least, that they will get a thumping majority in next years election.
Let's be quite honest here, Labour supporters have a choice between 3 plastic toys saying whatever is pre-recorded, according to the focus groups, once the string coming out of their backs is pulled and Corbyn.
Salmond has changed the political landscape. Sturgeon is continuing the process. Maybe the Tories should think on this before they get too gleeful.
I think that's pretty conclusive.
When socialists run out of other peoples' money, it gets ugly
I think the majority of non-voters don't vote not because they care and are upset, but because they frankly don't care. Which is not because they're disappointed, but rather because they're contentedly living out their own lives.
Its the same as the economy rising up the opinion polls as a key issue whenever the economy is doing badly, only to drop off once the economy is both doing well and seen to be doing well again. A rise of people not caring about politics is as likely to be because politics itself is done well as because its done badly. If it was done badly then people might care more to change it.
George Eaton @georgeeaton 41m41 minutes ago
Shadow cabinet minister tells me that almost all members would refuse to serve under Corbyn http://bit.ly/1CPXuTU
Labour members will surely step back from the brink when threatened with losing titans like Chris Leslie, Tristram Hunt and Rachel Reeves.
The membership will not be worried about seeing the many lightweights in the Shadow Cabinet disappear.
If they want a Corbyn shadow cabinet, they will not want it packed with the likes of the Leslies, Hunts or Reeves!
They will want their own Pure Labour people in there.
As Tom Bradby's been confirmed as future anchor of News at Ten, Landale to ITV as political editor would be feasible.
If we had poster of the year, Antifrank would be a shoo-in.
Though genuinely why would Corbyn with a mandate of winning leadership want people like Hunt in his shadown cabinet? Did Blair put Corbyn in his shadow cabinet?
Surely if we have a Corbyn-led Labour party he should promote like-minded MPs who'd be willing to serve under his leadership anyway and relegate those that wouldn't to be part of an awkward squad backbench. We could have a shadow cabinet filled with the likes of Abbott, Skinner etc
I like how George Osborne and David Cameron keep reminding the SNP in Westminster now that they have the ability to raise taxes and that they should "put up or shut up". Until they actually do put up taxes we can't judge the SNP as a regular left-wing party and once they do we should see how popular they continue to be.
When debating & voting on eurozone-only matters the representatives from non-euro countries could be excluded.
They could call it something like "Eurozone Votes for Eurozone Laws" (EVEL).
They just want the taxes to fall on Londoners.
Millibland was populist jumping from bandwagon to bandwagon only to be judged not credible by the electorate and lost. If Labour stare into the abyss now and retreat deeper into populism then that isn't necessarily because the UK as a whole wants it to do that, or will reward it for doing so.
But, in terms of providing a robust opposition to the Tories, it makes Corbyn's life as leader much easier if the likes of Reeves and Hunt keep themselves out of the way.
As for who might feature in a Corbyn shadow cabinet, the list of 48 MPs who opposed the welfare bill on Monday night probably represents a good starting point: http://labourlist.org/2015/07/48-mps-break-whip-to-vote-against-welfare-bill-full-list/
Would make PMQs entertaining.