I was surprised that no one had made a topic on this yet, then I remembered I was a moderator.

 

The "fixing" of the candidacy in Falkirk is an odd one. It's clearly dodgy practice, but equally dodgy things are done by all factions and it's a worrying that it got so little press attention until someone pointed out that the unions were up to it.

 

Owen Jones (and most of my friends) are understandably uncomfortable about changing the nature of the link between Labour and the unions but if initial reaction to his speech is anything to go by then Ed might have dug himself at least partially out of a hole. An opt-in membership system has been widely accepted as a Good Idea, as has imposing a spending cap on selection campaigns.

 

Although this piece in the Telegraph of all places thinks otherwise:

 

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanl...an-with-a-lisp/

I was surprised that no one had made a topic on this yet, then I remembered I was a moderator.

 

The "fixing" of the candidacy in Falkirk is an odd one. It's clearly dodgy practice, but equally dodgy things are done by all factions and it's a worrying that it got so little press attention until someone pointed out that the unions were up to it.

 

Owen Jones (and most of my friends) are understandably uncomfortable about changing the nature of the link between Labour and the unions but if initial reaction to his speech is anything to go by then Ed might have dug himself at least partially out of a hole. An opt-in membership system has been widely accepted as a Good Idea, as has imposing a spending cap on selection campaigns.

 

Although this piece in the Telegraph of all places thinks otherwise:

 

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanl...an-with-a-lisp/

 

The political media reacted well to it, but they also applauded the u-turn on spending cuts, and yet Labour's opinion poll ratings have fallen since then. It's pretty obvious that the media is hopelessly off the pace when it comes to gauging public opinion at this point. This latest 'strategy' will probably only further the impression that the party is unprincipled and that there's no point to it whatsoever, rather than winning over the mythical 'centre-ground'.

Edited July 10, 201312 yr by Danny

Unprincipled isn't what's suggested by measures which would have probably cost Ed the leadership had they been in place in 2010.

Maybe it is time state funding of major political parties was bought in, ban private donations altogether and each party gets an annual sum from the state to fund its offices and activities.

 

That way big business and billionaires cant buy influence in the tory party and unions can't have labour in its pocket.

The political media reacted well to it, but they also applauded the u-turn on spending cuts, and yet Labour's opinion poll ratings have fallen since then. It's pretty obvious that the media is hopelessly off the pace when it comes to gauging public opinion at this point. This latest 'strategy' will probably only further the impression that the party is unprincipled and that there's no point to it whatsoever, rather than winning over the mythical 'centre-ground'.

He's just bankrupted the bloody party with this move. You need to have principle behind it to willingly do something that self-defeating.

 

(In any case, Labour's opinion poll ratings have consistently been falling since about January - a lot of people who are against it insist that the u-turn on spending cuts have played a part in that, and there's the possibility it could have done, but I'm inclined to say it's unlikely given most of our poll ratings have been at a similar level to those before the u-turn and most people in likelihood haven't noticed the u-turn at all.

 

Most people in likelihood won't notice this change either, which makes it all the more painful to stomach - they might be aware vaguely that there's some trouble going on between the unions and the Labour Party at the moment if they pay attention to the news, but if there's one thing that the political chatterati always gets wrong without fail it's how much the British public notices/cares about political stories.)

Edited July 10, 201312 yr by Kanduälska

Maybe it is time state funding of major political parties was bought in, ban private donations altogether and each party gets an annual sum from the state to fund its offices and activities.

 

That way big business and billionaires cant buy influence in the tory party and unions can't have labour in its pocket.

State funding has long struck me as the obvious solution. Not least because it could help stop the endless corruption scandals, but also as it could actually help the unions. It's almost impossible for the Labour Party to put through overtly pro-union policy without media shrieks of how they're being bought off by the unions (which strangely enough never come about when the Conservatives put through pro-business policy...), which would disappear the second we were no longer being funded to the tune of about 80% by the unions - because at that point the story would become 'Labour puts through policy which is supported by supporters of Labour', to which the only natural response is '...duh?'.

Unprincipled isn't what's suggested by measures which would have probably cost Ed the leadership had they been in place in 2010.

 

 

He's just bankrupted the bloody party with this move. You need to have principle behind it to willingly do something that self-defeating.

 

I really don't buy that he's done this because he fundamentally believes it's the right thing to do :lol: He would've done it ages ago if that was the case. He's done this because he got a couple of weeks of bad press coverage, believed (mistakenly) that one of the reasons Labour are doing badly is because people still have a 1980s-style hatred of the union, and thought this would be a "Clause 4" moment. If doing things entirely for short-term political gain isn't unprincipled, then what is? I still stand by that Labour's biggest problem for like the past 10 years isn't being too right-wing or too left-wing or whatever, it's the sense that they do things not because they think it's right but because they cynically think it will win them votes and have no core values that they're not willing to sacrifice if there's a vote in it, and this move is no different.

 

(In any case, Labour's opinion poll ratings have consistently been falling since about January - a lot of people who are against it insist that the u-turn on spending cuts have played a part in that, and there's the possibility it could have done, but I'm inclined to say it's unlikely given most of our poll ratings have been at a similar level to those before the u-turn and most people in likelihood haven't noticed the u-turn at all.

 

Even so, the logic behind it was that their opinion poll ratings were being dragged down by them being seen as "uncredible", and that accepting all the spending cuts would change that. So it's been a huge failure on its own terms.

Edited July 10, 201312 yr by Danny

I really don't buy that he's done this because he fundamentally believes it's the right thing to do :lol: He would've done it ages ago if that was the case. He's done this because he got a couple of weeks of bad press coverage, believed (mistakenly) that one of the reasons Labour are doing badly is because people still have a 1980s-style hatred of the union, and thought this would be a "Clause 4" moment. If doing things entirely for short-term political gain isn't unprincipled, then what is? I still stand by that Labour's biggest problem for like the past 10 years isn't being too right-wing or too left-wing or whatever, it's the sense that they do things not because they think it's right but because they cynically think it will win them votes and have no core values that they're not willing to sacrifice if there's a vote in it, and this move is no different.

 

It was a change Brown planned to bring in at the height of his popularity, but backed down because he didn't think he'd be able to get it through. It hasn't been brought in before now for two reasons: one, it hasn't been a relevant topic, which would've made it a bit of a bizarre out-of-nowhere distraction in the middle of an economic crisis when, as Ed said himself, most people's concerns relate more to living standards rather than the relationship between the Labour Party and the unions. Secondly, because of number one, Ed's not had the power until now to get this through - if this had gone through at any time other than now, it would've been dead in the water as there would've been no impetus for change, let alone impetus as strong as this. I think you're making a mistake assuming that this could've been done at any point - or in thinking that Ed thinks Labour's doing badly because people hate unions. One can recognise that an arrangement isn't working (one of the side-effects of it is the odd occasion of unpopular machine politics, but most of the effects of things being changed won't be noticed at all by most) and work to change it without expecting it to have much of an impact on public popularity. After all, when it comes down to it - who will really decide their bloody vote on whether union members opt in or out of donating to Labour with the political levy?

 

In any case, I don't really see what's unprincipled about making donating to Labour as a union member something people opt into rather than opt out of - if anything, that's making the process far more honest and principled (i.e. we're not going to take money off of people who may not know their money may be going to Labour). I don't like it as we're going to have bugger all money as a result, but it's hardly a cynical short-term boost measure.

 

Even so, the logic behind it was that their opinion poll ratings were being dragged down by them being seen as "uncredible", and that accepting all the spending cuts would change that. So it's been a huge failure on its own terms.

You're assuming that the action was taken with the thought that it would pay off immediately in the polls, rather than in the long-term when it's noticed as a policy in the short campaign before the election. Most people don't pay any attention at all to changes in party policy until they have to, and anybody who thinks that oppositional policy changes will lead to poll boosts/losses in the short-term is a fool. I trust that the people who designed the policy have been in the game long enough to realise that.

If Cameron does the self-serving thing (why am I doubting this?) he'll continue to dismiss the idea of a donation cap, meaning that businesses will continue to be able to donate millions to his party while Labour enforces a rule upon itself that cuts our funding severely. It wouldn't be difficult given I can't imagine state funding being too popular with the general public (for the same reason as increasing MP wages, it's seen as helping people who don't need/deserve any more no matter how logical it may be).

 

I read a particularly daft article today predicting a Labour defeat in 2015 on the logic that what Miliband is doing has echoes of Kinnock cracking down on Militant before 1987.

If Cameron does the self-serving thing (why am I doubting this?) he'll continue to dismiss the idea of a donation cap, meaning that businesses will continue to be able to donate millions to his party while Labour enforces a rule upon itself that cuts our funding severely. It wouldn't be difficult given I can't imagine state funding being too popular with the general public (for the same reason as increasing MP wages, it's seen as helping people who don't need/deserve any more no matter how logical it may be).

 

I read a particularly daft article today predicting a Labour defeat in 2015 on the logic that what Miliband is doing has echoes of Kinnock cracking down on Militant before 1987.

 

I think there is a very good chance of a Labour defeat in 2015, not necessarily a tory majority although that is possible, but certainly the tories as the largest party in a coalition.

 

All the key economic indicators are heading in the right direction -

 

More people getting jobs

House prices soaring

Retail sales buoyant

Exports booming

 

All these things will boost the tories if the good news continues up to 2015

 

Add in the fact the media will rip apart Miliband like hounds rip apart a fox too

 

I think Labour have peaked and the tories bottomed out, watch the gap close strongly next 2 years and maybe turn into a tory lead

State funding has long struck me as the obvious solution. Not least because it could help stop the endless corruption scandals, but also as it could actually help the unions. It's almost impossible for the Labour Party to put through overtly pro-union policy without media shrieks of how they're being bought off by the unions (which strangely enough never come about when the Conservatives put through pro-business policy...), which would disappear the second we were no longer being funded to the tune of about 80% by the unions - because at that point the story would become 'Labour puts through policy which is supported by supporters of Labour', to which the only natural response is '...duh?'.

 

Its scary that 2 people who are polar opposites politically are agreeing on something :o :P but i think that state funding for parties would result in more transparency and maybe even more trust in MP's from all parties and an end to the 'x is in y's pocket' that gets put about all the time.

I think there is a very good chance of a Labour defeat in 2015, not necessarily a tory majority although that is possible, but certainly the tories as the largest party in a coalition.

 

All the key economic indicators are heading in the right direction -

 

More people getting jobs

House prices soaring

Retail sales buoyant

Exports booming

 

All these things will boost the tories if the good news continues up to 2015

 

Add in the fact the media will rip apart Miliband like hounds rip apart a fox too

 

I think Labour have peaked and the tories bottomed out, watch the gap close strongly next 2 years and maybe turn into a tory lead

Of those four, the latter three aren't exactly vote winners (you forget that thankfully not everyone thinks like you) and employment figures are likely to be pretty shaky - especially taking out part time and zero hours contracts.

Of those four, the latter three aren't exactly vote winners (you forget that thankfully not everyone thinks like you) and employment figures are likely to be pretty shaky - especially taking out part time and zero hours contracts.

 

The 4 are interlinked

 

Stronger the housing market the more houses will be built, jobs created for the construction industry p

 

Strong retail market means more jobs created in retail

 

Strong export market means more jobs created in manufacturing

 

More people that are in work the more tax revenues Gideon gets so the quicker the deficit can come down.

 

Most people vote with their wallets, if they feel secure in their job and they see their house value rising they are more inclined to vote tory, the economy and welfare reform will decide the next election not the NHS, education, fox hunting, gay marriage or EU.

 

Prediction for 2015 - Tories largest party in a coalition or a smallish tory majority.

Of those four, the latter three aren't exactly vote winners (you forget that thankfully not everyone thinks like you) and employment figures are likely to be pretty shaky - especially taking out part time and zero hours contracts.

It's less that the latter three are vote winners and more that they're indicative of economic confidence, which leads people to favour the incumbents...if we're getting all that with shaky growth by the time of 2015, then that plays right into the Tories hands as they'll lead with the 'we're on the right track, don't let Labour ruin it' message that they planned all along, which will chime a lot more if there's consistent mediocre growth rather than consistent poor growth of the sort we've been getting for a while now.

 

If I'm being honest, I could see the Tories taking the lead in the polls within the year, if not sooner. There's not much you can do with the economic fundamentals against you, and the one or two that remain stubbornly terrible - employment, food banks etc - weren't ever much of a barrier to Thatcher either.

 

(and dear god please nobody bring up the flawed SDP excuse for her victories given time and time again polling found that at best when you took the Alliance out their voters split 50/50 between Labour and the Tories, and the SDP's fortunes tended to inversely correlate with those of the Conservatives in polling)

The 4 are interlinked

 

Stronger the housing market the more houses will be built, jobs created for the construction industry p

 

Strong retail market means more jobs created in retail

 

Strong export market means more jobs created in manufacturing

 

More people that are in work the more tax revenues Gideon gets so the quicker the deficit can come down.

 

Most people vote with their wallets, if they feel secure in their job and they see their house value rising they are more inclined to vote tory, the economy and welfare reform will decide the next election not the NHS, education, fox hunting, gay marriage or EU.

 

Prediction for 2015 - Tories largest party in a coalition or a smallish tory majority.

The NHS sticks out like a sore thumb there, it has the potential to be a real vote swinger.

I wouldn't say the economy is anywhere near at a stage where we can proclaim it is going in the right direction. As that colossal tit in charge of the taxpayers money has proved once before, he is more than capable of turning an economic recovery into a near triple dip recession.

 

I don't think we can be optimistic about the state of this countries finances until we can be certain George Osbourne has nothing to do with them.

Much as it pains me to say it, it was recently found that the double-dip recession never actually happened...obviously it's little great comfort ('you were a tenth of a percent better off than you originally thought!') but still, one less thing we can blame on George is one less joy for the world :(

You're assuming that the action was taken with the thought that it would pay off immediately in the polls, rather than in the long-term when it's noticed as a policy in the short campaign before the election. Most people don't pay any attention at all to changes in party policy until they have to, and anybody who thinks that oppositional policy changes will lead to poll boosts/losses in the short-term is a fool. I trust that the people who designed the policy have been in the game long enough to realise that.

 

Then that undermines the entire reason for doing it in the first place :lol: If nothing an opposition party says has an impact on poll ratings, then, by that very logic, it's impossible to say that they were "underperforming" up til now because people thought their policy on spending was "uncredible". And yet, that was the EXACT argument made by both Labour leadership and their supporters at the time, that their "underperforming" poll ratings meant that agreeing with all the spending cuts was necessary. Either polls mean something or they don't

Edited July 11, 201312 yr by Danny

I wouldn't say the economy is anywhere near at a stage where we can proclaim it is going in the right direction. As that colossal tit in charge of the taxpayers money has proved once before, he is more than capable of turning an economic recovery into a near triple dip recession.

 

I don't think we can be optimistic about the state of this countries finances until we can be certain George Osbourne has nothing to do with them.

 

 

Much as it pains me to say it, it was recently found that the double-dip recession never actually happened...obviously it's little great comfort ('you were a tenth of a percent better off than you originally thought!') but still, one less thing we can blame on George is one less joy for the world :(

 

Most people didn't even know there was a double-dip recession in the first place (in fact, a lot of people think there's been a continuous recession ever since 2008 and that it's still ongoing now - not unreasonably, considering most of the country outside London and some parts of the south certainly feel like the recession has never ended), so that being revised away, or any improvements in GDP now, will have no direct impact on poll ratings. In fact, the economy has never really decided UK elections -- you just have to look at the 1990s to see that, the Conservatives got re-elected in '92 when the economy was in a mess and got thrashed in '97 when it was booming.

 

I don't disagree that the Conservatives are now probably going to win the next election though, but there was nothing inevitable about it.

Edited July 11, 201312 yr by Danny

Then that undermines the entire reason for doing it in the first place :lol: If nothing an opposition party says has an impact on poll ratings, then, by that very logic, it's impossible to say that they were "underperforming" up til now because people thought their policy on spending was "uncredible". And yet, that was the EXACT argument made by both Labour leadership and their supporters at the time, that their "underperforming" poll ratings meant that agreeing with all the spending cuts was necessary. Either polls mean something or they don't

Well not really - it's recognising that our poll lead in the short-term is soft. The aim isn't to improve short term polling, but to improve it in the long-term with a view to the election when people are more likely to seriously consider what makes a government that can handle the economy. This wasn't to try hike up short term ratings from 39 to 44 - this was to hike up the election result from 33 to 38. In any case, it's not that 'nothing we say' has an effect - people are probably vaguely aware of what our position was before now as it bled through repeatedly over two years that we were in favour of more short-term borrowing. I'm saying that one announcement doesn't really get noticed unless it's hammered in again and again.

 

Committing to only reverse current day-to-day spending cuts if we've costed it is something pretty much any government would have to do to be seen as responsible - borrowing to pay for wages or daily services is a pretty bloody dangerous position to be in economically (hence why we don't have the same trouble with having limits on capital borrowing), and hardly represents some great capitulafion to Tory ideology given Brown's famous golden rule had the same commitment to not borrow to fund current spending, and only to borrow to fund capital spending.

 

If anything, the trouble is that the public might not believe it and think we're just saying it to get in. The Tories are well aware of this - it's why they didn't crow 'they've accepted our argument!' as you'd expect as a reaction to the headline summary of the commitment and are spinning relentlessly that Miliband and balls are just saying this to get elected and aren't to be trusted - because they know that has far more resonance than conceding that it's a responsible move.