But to be fair here, it doesn't matter who is elected as Labour leader they won't be able to win the election unless the Tories cock up the economy. If the economy is stable most people feel fine and then go into the polling station to vote for a continuation of the same. The economy is the deciding factor in every election, it doesn't matter whether Labour and the Conservatives stand miles apart (1945, 1983); on the same centre-left platform (1959); or the same right wing platform (1997-2010) - the incumbent will stay in if the economy is doing fine and lose if it isn't.
Corbyn can go into the election debate studio in five years time and go Keynesianism is more stable than Neo-Liberal economics or Kendall can go in and say actually we need to continue to cut back more and sell off the NHS to dodgy private health companies - if Gideon (or Cameron if he reneges on his promise) can say look at the economy I managed successfully, no more recessions - then the Tories will win. The level of opposition doesn't matter, it's the government's own record that matters. If Blair had fought the 2015 election he would have lost. If Cameron had fought the 2005 election he would have lost. If Callaghan had called the election when his advisers told him to, Thatcher would probably have lost. You can have the nicest leader with the most different policies but at the end of the day "it's the economy, stupid".
The next big leader?
Quite. I'm also quite surprised at the number of admitted Tory voters who seem quite concerned at the "disaster" Labour are heading for if they elect Corbyn. Why should they care, unless they actually want a Tory-lite party to better represent their views and are worried that Labour are swinging away?Alexia wrote:I would rather the Labour party be true to their cause and be defeated, than sell out their morals to win.
Anyway, this comment from the Telegraph sums up many of my thoughts much more eloquently than I can manage:
JOHN B ELLIS 5 hours ago
I listened to Liz Kendall being interviewed by James Naughtie on Radio 4's "Today" programe this morning. She was fluent, earnest and articulate, but left me with the odd and uneasy sense that her approach to politics is at root indistinguishable from the allegiance that your average traditional football fan feels for his club and its team. "I love this party too much to see it defeated again" she proclaimed. "I for one will never leave the party I love". "If Corbyn were elected, I do not believe we would be re-elected in 2020". "I don’t want to see Labour submit our resignation letter to the British people as a serious party of government". Asked why, in the light of that, Mr Corbyn seems to have garnered so much support and enthusiasm among her party members and potential voters, she said: "I think they hear simple solutions, but they're the wrong solutions ... People depend on us to have a modern, progressive, outward looking party that can win elections and put our policies into practice ..." Corbyn, she maintained, represents the policies of the past, and would reduce Labour to "protesting on the sidelines".
I was left with the feeling that Ms Kendall's devotion to the Labour party is less a matter of principles and values, but more a simple devotion to the Labour faction. She and those who think like her want to see Labour win. They assume that's what Labour supporters want too; just as premier league football supporters want their team to win, they too want to see their team in office. Ms Kendall and her ilk seem to view their role as if it were that of a top team football manager: "we're the experts; trust us to know best what will win elections and what won't. After all, you want is to win the cup, don't you? The cup for us is a solid majority in the Commons, and because, just like you, 'we're Labour till we die', we can win together But you really do have to trust us managers to get our team to the parliamentary Wembley!"
And some Labour supporters are indeed like football supporters. Labour's their team, and they wouldn't dream of supporting any other, even if quite often they find themselves grousing at the team's performance on the field. How else, to give just one instance, did flagrant and brazen expenses exploiter Hazel Blears win her seat quite easily next time round? There was a wave of opposition to her on her patch, but in the end that proved nothing like enough to lose her the seat.
But the sort of people who've responded to Jeremy Corbyn don't see politics as some sort of game, in which, because winning is all that counts, any strategy thought to make the winning more likely is ipso facto justified, and any once-cherished principle which in the team managers' judgement might get in the way of winning must be jettisoned without sentiment or regret. They think politics is about principle, and that principle, if it's conscientiously held after careful consideration, ought to be held to, regardless as to whether at any given time it's popular or not. And they perceive that Mr Corbyn has firm beliefs and principles, and that, when compared with him, his opponents seem not to. They're just not convinced that winning at any cost is the name of the political game. And they have a sense that the other leadership contenders - to a greater or lesser extent; Andy Burnham at least has shown some signs of recognizing this - are patronizing them and treating them with condescension, whereas Corbyn's approach is collaborative and respectful. And they know which they prefer.
It's certainly a major factor, but it doesn't explain why the Tories held power in 1992 (close to the peak of the 90s recession) but lost it in 1997 (by which point the recession was over).DTV wrote:But to be fair here, it doesn't matter who is elected as Labour leader they won't be able to win the election unless the Tories cock up the economy. If the economy is stable most people feel fine and then go into the polling station to vote for a continuation of the same. The economy is the deciding factor in every election, it doesn't matter whether Labour and the Conservatives stand miles apart (1945, 1983); on the same centre-left platform (1959); or the same right wing platform (1997-2010) - the incumbent will stay in if the economy is doing fine and lose if it isn't.
Corbyn can go into the election debate studio in five years time and go Keynesianism is more stable than Neo-Liberal economics or Kendall can go in and say actually we need to continue to cut back more and sell off the NHS to dodgy private health companies - if Gideon (or Cameron if he reneges on his promise) can say look at the economy I managed successfully, no more recessions - then the Tories will win. The level of opposition doesn't matter, it's the government's own record that matters. If Blair had fought the 2015 election he would have lost. If Cameron had fought the 2005 election he would have lost. If Callaghan had called the election when his advisers told him to, Thatcher would probably have lost. You can have the nicest leader with the most different policies but at the end of the day "it's the economy, stupid".
+1Alexia wrote:I would rather the Labour party be true to their cause and be defeated, than sell out their morals to win.
Today we see Burnham effectively secure the second preference vote of Corbyn's supporters. Whether that'll do him any good or not, I don't know.
Today David Milliband has joined the ranks of Labour party ghosts warning against Corbyn and trotting out the tired rhetoric that he will be unelectable. What he and all the rest forget is that there are still 4¾ years until the next election - plenty of time to see how a move back to the party's core values goes. The time to try is now.
Today David Milliband has joined the ranks of Labour party ghosts warning against Corbyn and trotting out the tired rhetoric that he will be unelectable. What he and all the rest forget is that there are still 4¾ years until the next election - plenty of time to see how a move back to the party's core values goes. The time to try is now.
-
martindtanderson
- Posts: 527
- Joined: Tue 23 Dec, 2003 04.03
- Location: London, UK
- Contact:
I am torn between Andy "Flip Flop" Burnham as the "electable" candidate, and Jeremy "Brother" Corbyn as the candidate I share the most sentiment with.WillPS wrote:Today we see Burnham effectively secure the second preference vote of Corbyn's supporters. Whether that'll do him any good or not, I don't know.
Today David Milliband has joined the ranks of Labour party ghosts warning against Corbyn and trotting out the tired rhetoric that he will be unelectable. What he and all the rest forget is that there are still 4¾ years until the next election - plenty of time to see how a move back to the party's core values goes. The time to try is now.
These two will get my 1st and 2nd preference votes when I finally vote later this month. Liz "Thatcher" Kendall I may give a 4th preference to, or I may just not give her any vote.
As for the Deputy, I think I will give my first preference to Angela Eagle, as the candidate Ken Livingston endorses, and a female voice alongside a male leader. Tom Watson I am intrigued by, he had a big profile during the Phone Hacking - Anti Murdoch enquiry. But he has a brash personality, and I don't think it would be a good mix alongside the leader.
The other people we have to vote for I will probably pick the most local candidates.
As for the London Mayoral candidate... I am undecided.
One thing that strikes me about this leadership contest is all the talk of Labour 'Core Values' without anyone ever mentioning what they are. If we presume that these are the values that the Labour Party was founded on, then Attlee would have been spreading a watered down version of those principles. Attlee was a social democrat, ideologically speaking, where as the party was founded as a democratic socialist party. There is an important distinction here - a democratic socialist (Bevan, Hardie etc.) is someone who aims of a socialist society through democratic means; a social democrat is someone who aims for a mixed market economy. While the distinction is blurry, a democratic socialist society would eventually abolish the free market and Attlee never seemed that in favour doing so. 'Clause IV', the pin-up principle of the left, has never really been evidenced in any Labour manifesto or actioned to any serious extent by any Labour government because, if taken literally, would mean nationalising shops etc. Nevertheless, Corbyn is clearly the closest to the founding principles of the Labour Party. But is Labour of today that same party? In Who Governs Britain? Anthony King basically sums up post-war party politics suggesting that once the Labour party was the party of ideology and the Conservatives the broad-church party concerned with power, but recently those roles have reversed. If that is true Corbyn will definetely breathe a new ideologicl life into the party and possibly take it back to some ground only really occupied by the increasingly in-fighting Green Party (But Melons vs Watermelons is a tale for another day).
I for one would be in favour of a party split in both the main parties but only if STV-PR was introduced for general elections. Then both Labour parties and both/all 3 Conservative parties would have a chance of some influence. Obviously some would merge with other parties and there'dd eventually be a different political landscape - i.e. the Rees-Moggs and Dorriess of the world would end up in some Ukippy party and the orange bookers/Blairites/Thatcherites would end up in some new Liberal Democrats. But you would get to a stage where genuine One Nation Tories could be working with Socialists in government ("Toryism has always been a form of paternal socialism" - Harold MacMillan) are at worst just end up with a healthy democracy with a breadth of choice, ideologically wise - perhaps like all the other forward looking Liberal Democracies in Europe. Otherwise we'll end up in the ideological black hole of the USA where ideologically the parties are the difference of Blair and Cameron.
I for one would be in favour of a party split in both the main parties but only if STV-PR was introduced for general elections. Then both Labour parties and both/all 3 Conservative parties would have a chance of some influence. Obviously some would merge with other parties and there'dd eventually be a different political landscape - i.e. the Rees-Moggs and Dorriess of the world would end up in some Ukippy party and the orange bookers/Blairites/Thatcherites would end up in some new Liberal Democrats. But you would get to a stage where genuine One Nation Tories could be working with Socialists in government ("Toryism has always been a form of paternal socialism" - Harold MacMillan) are at worst just end up with a healthy democracy with a breadth of choice, ideologically wise - perhaps like all the other forward looking Liberal Democracies in Europe. Otherwise we'll end up in the ideological black hole of the USA where ideologically the parties are the difference of Blair and Cameron.
Excellent opinion piece in The Guardian today: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... ible-dream
And a failed hatchet job by Cathy "I was thrown out of a mosque" Newman.
Despite not having a bone in this fight, I'm also getting tired of constant accusations of anti-semitism aimed at JC by...er...the JC. Anti-Israel and anti-Zionism is not antisemitism. Being anti-Israel and being anti-Zionist are political positions based on a political and religious ideology. Being anti-semitic is being racist against the so-called ethnic Jews, although how adherents to a particular religion can be classed into an ethnicity is beyond me. If ethnic Jews exist, then surely ethnic Muslims exist, which would make Islamophobia as abhorrent as anti-semitism. Yet somehow mainstream rightwing media accept that.
Despite not having a bone in this fight, I'm also getting tired of constant accusations of anti-semitism aimed at JC by...er...the JC. Anti-Israel and anti-Zionism is not antisemitism. Being anti-Israel and being anti-Zionist are political positions based on a political and religious ideology. Being anti-semitic is being racist against the so-called ethnic Jews, although how adherents to a particular religion can be classed into an ethnicity is beyond me. If ethnic Jews exist, then surely ethnic Muslims exist, which would make Islamophobia as abhorrent as anti-semitism. Yet somehow mainstream rightwing media accept that.