General Election 2015

[AFCB_Mark]

Anyone seen Mandelson this morning? Urging Labour back to neo-liberalism New Labour central politics and criticising (very much indirectly) Ed Milliband's direction and more directly his trade union backing. He wants to reform and cut the trade union strength over Labour leadership elections and the funding links with them.

Chucka Umunna on now, talking quite well and less hysterical than Mandelson, trying to shoot down the middle. Basically confirming his ambition for leadership without being direct about it.

 

[Alty]

Anyone seen Mandelson this morning? Urging Labour back to neo-liberalism New Labour central politics and criticising (very much indirectly) Ed Milliband's direction and more directly his trade union backing. He wants to reform and cut the trade union strength over Labour leadership elections and the funding links with them.

Chucka Umunna on now, talking quite well and less hysterical than Mandelson, trying to shoot down the middle. Basically confirming his ambition for leadership without being direct about it.

Why doesn't Mandelson do everyone a favour and fuck off to the Conservative Party? Dreadful man.

Just don't understand the appeal of Umunna. What's different about him? He's on the centre-right of the party, trots out the same old platitudes about helping the vulnerable while appealing to the aspirational. I just don't buy. It's Tory Lite all over again.

 

[Cheese & Biscuits]

Umunna at least has a bit of charisma and talks a good game. I think he has the personality to take on Cameron.

I'm not sure who else is better to be honest. I'm looking forward to seeing who throws their hat in the ring.

 

[TractorBoys]

Labour losses in local council elections, too; http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32671424

 

[Techno Natch]

This is one of the best thigs I've read since the election and worth a read even if you just scan it. It's written by psychologists and looks at the impact that Austerity has had on peoples mental health.

https://m.facebook.com/l.php?u=http...IICbmxXr55vCvz823CJW3vDBPhGNbHi3xWkS98Xbg&s=1

 

[Red]

Why doesn't Mandelson do everyone a favour and fuck off to the Conservative Party? Dreadful man.

Just don't understand the appeal of Umunna. What's different about him? He's on the centre-right of the party, trots out the same old platitudes about helping the vulnerable while appealing to the aspirational. I just don't buy. It's Tory Lite all over again.

He's a smooth operator, but everything you say about him is true, and that vile scumbag Mandelson. I'd like to see Burnham having a go for Labour leader. He comes from a background that would resonate with working class voters and I reckon he's on the left of the party.

 

[Madejski]

This was the first election for quite a while where the majority of people voted for right wing parties. So a more right sided Labour might be what they need in the future if the country is heading in that direction? Certainly they can't stay where they are as it wasn't working.

 

[The Southbank]

I find it hard to believe people wanted tougher austerity for another 5 yrs and didn't care that the poor would be targeted? There's no desire or enthusiasm for Cameron at all. No one's living standards have improved.

Lastly how labour didn't challenge "your spending caused the crash" lie - I can't fathom. People believe that building afew hospitals led to banks going bust!!!!!

I've depressed myself again now about the intelligence of the British people..

Except it isn't a lie. Gordon Brown was constantly dipping his hand into the pension pot, constantly keeping spending off the books. Building a few PFI hospitals counteracts what Labour say about privatisation of the NHS. If you don't think Labour had anything to do with the recession then you have your head in the sand.

 

[Cheese & Biscuits]

This was the first election for quite a while where the majority of people voted for right wing parties. So a more right sided Labour might be what they need in the future if the country is heading in that direction? Certainly they can't stay where they are as it wasn't working.

Or it wasn't communicated effectively. Maybe staying further left with a 'better' leader may have reaped rewards. Who knows?

 

[Cheese & Biscuits]

Except it isn't a lie. Gordon Brown was constantly dipping his hand into the pension pot, constantly keeping spending off the books. Building a few PFI hospitals counteracts what Labour say about privatisation of the NHS. If you don't think Labour had anything to do with the recession then you have your head in the sand.

A small amount of the blame lies with the government but I think we would have had a similar outcome with a Tory government. Didn't the Tories rule during the previous recession?

I'm not sure any party is immune TBH.

 

[Bobbin']

Except it isn't a lie. Gordon Brown was constantly dipping his hand into the pension pot, constantly keeping spending off the books. Building a few PFI hospitals counteracts what Labour say about privatisation of the NHS. If you don't think Labour had anything to do with the recession then you have your head in the sand.

This.

I'm sure Labour would have made more of an effort to contest the accusations if they didn't feel an ounce of responsibility.

Chucka Umanna basically said as much this morning too.

 

[The Southbank]

A small amount of the blame lies with the government but I think we would have had a similar outcome with a Tory government. Didn't the Tories rule during the previous recession?

I'm not sure any party is immune TBH.

Of course not, but the post read like Labour were immune from any sort of criticism.

 

[.V.]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1562023/Tories-vow-to-match-Labour-spending.html

 

[Tilbury]

 

[Alty]

Certainly some correlation. But then you have places like Merseyside where there were no coalfields but the area remains tribal Labour.

It is depressing that almost everywhere outside urban inner cities and ex pit villages votes Tory though.

 

[Pyeman]

If you don't think Labour had anything to do with the recession then you have your head in the sand.

Something I've often wondered - had we had a Tory government from 97-07, would that have prevented the recession from happening?

The answer is most likely no. You could argue the depth of the recession may not have been so extreme, but there's no way to know for sure. What I think the Conservatives did incredibly well was to create the impression that had they been in charge, everything would have been rosey. They never explicitly said that, but it was certainly the undertone to their entire first term.

Labour might well have overspent to a degree prior the economic crash, but are they to blame for the recession? I think there's a very strong argument that they weren't, and it was their inability to communicate this message that hurt them in the election.

 

[mnb089mnb]

Labour overspend?

Tories said they'd match their spending didn't they?

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

I think, rightly or wrongly, the impression that most voters got was that the Tories would promise to make Britain more competitive, while Labour would promise to spend more on the less well off. I think with policies like raising the minimum wage, Labour completely misjudged the mood of the public mid-economic-recovery.

 

[Red]

I agree with the first part of that, but not the second. Raising the minimum wage would have made economic sense in terms of the government saving money on WTC. I think its introduction was a good policy too, a policy that the Tories were ideologically opposed to when Labour implemented it.
Do you mean the timing would have been wrong in terms of how increasing the NMW would have an adverse effect on business? If so that's a fair point, but how would that address the problem we have with working families needing to claim benefits and having to go to foodbanks? Properly raising the NMW would have helped that.

 

[SALTIRE]

That sea of blue on that map made me feel quite bilious.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

I think raising the minimum wage only makes sense if you assume that the market won't react to it, which is the weakness that economic policies from the left often seem to have. Businesses won't be passive, prices will creep up from retailers to take advantage of the money most people now have in their pockets, while manufacturers will hesitate to bring jobs here, if not actively move them abroad. In the end you just make life harder for those looking for work, and likely increase your spending bill without having the extra tax revenue to compensate for it.

 

[Stringy]

It doesn't seem like £8 by 2020 is that much of an improvement. From October 1st it will be £6.70 per hour an hour anyway.

I would have made more of the employment contracts. Even companies that offer regular contracts write into the small print that they can cut hours according to the needs of the business. In practice this means that they honour few of the contracts they offer, something that leaves plenty of people out of pocket.

 

[Cheese & Biscuits]

Anyone heard about George Galloway taking legal action regarding the election in Bradford?

Edit: This is all I have seen.
https://twitter.com/helenpidd/status/597487169926733825?s=09

 

[TheArtfulDodger]

View attachment 935

How do you explain Liverpool, Manchester and London then? The map is basically, urban, intelligent people who integrate with different people and vote Labour V backward, posh six fingered, selfish c*** who vote Tories.

That's my view anyway,...

 

[silkyman]

Or put another way.

People who do what non Dom newspaper owners tell them, and people who don't.

 

[The Paranoid Pineapple]

I'm no great fan of New Labour, but its architects clearly had a coherent vision for the party and a set of policies that had broad appeal. Despite the many missteps (Iraq, PFIs) I tend to think Blairism is slightly unfairly maligned. People have a tendency to forget about the economic calamaties of the last Tory administration and what an awful shape public services and infrastructure were in the mid 90s. Yes, Blair accepted a lot of the Thatcherite reforms that had gone before, but he also promised and delivered massive investment into public services. The public knew schools, roads, hospitals were in a terrible state so they bought into this, just as they bought into his socially progressive policies, which included a raft of equality legislation. Ultimately, they had an agenda, that a range of people from across society, liked and could relate to. I think that's quite in contrast to where the party is at the moment. The economy is still quite fragile, as evidenced by growth having slowed in each of the last four quarters, and yet the Tories have been able to cultivate the idea that they're the only party that can be trusted with the economy. Labour have done a dismal job of defending their own record in office, allowing their opponents to perpetuate the myth that the crash was a) caused by Labour's recklessness and b) wouldn't have happened under a Conservative administration. They've had a few good ideas, but that's not enough. On austerity, on immigration, on the evil Scots, they've had no compelling counter-narrative. I guess where I depart from the Nu Lab apparatchik's is the idea that they've lost the election because they've lurched too far to the left. With the exception of immigration and welfare, if you blind test people you'll discover that they overwhelmingly favour policies that sit to the left of where Labour are campaigning. I don't think they necessarily need to lurch one way or the other, they just need a more coherent set of policies and become a bit more adept at countering Tory spin.

Except it isn't a lie. Gordon Brown was constantly dipping his hand into the pension pot, constantly keeping spending off the books. Building a few PFI hospitals counteracts what Labour say about privatisation of the NHS. If you don't think Labour had anything to do with the recession then you have your head in the sand.

It's definitely being somewhat economical with the truth. Government spending levels and budget deficits bear little responsibility for the crisis. The recession had more to do with de-regulation and the housing bubble and would undoubtedly have occurred under a Tory administration.

 

[Tilbury]

How do you explain Liverpool, Manchester and London then? The map is basically, urban, intelligent people who integrate with different people and vote Labour V backward, posh six fingered, selfish c*** who vote Tories.

That's my view anyway,...

Is not meant to be a definitive analyse of the results, just an interesting angle.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

It's definitely being somewhat economical with the truth. Government spending levels and budget deficits bear little responsibility for the crisis. The recession had more to do with de-regulation and the housing bubble and would undoubtedly have occurred under a Tory administration.

And will undoubtedly happen again.

 

[Martino Knockavelli]

The situation is grim, good hearted pinkos. Slytherin has the quaffle and Winter is Coming. But let us find the silver lining in this massive piss smelling cloud. From crisis comes opportunity. Tis always darkest just before dawn. Such a shoeing will force the Labour braintrust to look into the mirror. To reevaluate. To ponder what the party has been, what it is, what it could be, what it should be. From this grim crucible will emerge a new generation of leaders and thinkers, men and women of great strength, charisma, daring and imagination. Amongst them will be a new Lincoln, Alexander, Asoka or Mandela. A titan to liberate us from the choking tyranny of dismal consensus, to build a better Britain, a better world.

"Hunt said the Labour party needed to appeal to the “John Lewis community” "

Oh.

 

[nousername]

Nationalism meets the quirks of our electoral system (update and final result):

UKIP
3.9 million votes (12.6% vote share)
1 seat
3.9 million votes per seat

SNP
1.5 million votes (4.7 % vote share)
56 seats
27,000 (approx) votes per seat.

We probably need some PR.

Isn't this a little bit of a red herring, seeing as the SNP had candidates in only Scottish seats, while UKIP had - and I'm guessing here - candidates in almost all seats throughout the UK?

We're not really comparing apples with apples here?