Even people in an "aspirational" southern seat are evenly split on whether Labour was too left-wing or not left-wing enough:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32654893

It even SAYS RIGHT THERE in the description that it couldn't be less scientific as a poll! http://www.moopy.org.uk/forums/images/smilies/grin.gif

As it goes though, I'm not especially confident that the voters of Scotland would surge back en masse to overturn five figure majorities if Andy Burnham came in as a socialist tribune incarnate. I'm even less confident that's what the voters of Chipping Barnet, Canterbury and Chingford are crying out for.

 

I'd consider it far less risky to have a hard-headed return to moderate Labour with working-class appeal - I think Dan Jarvis as leader would've been the best way of communicating that, but in the absence of that I think the best option from the people running now would be Liz Kendall as leader (because like christ is Chuka going to appeal to the disaffected of Morley and Outwood on that front) and (even though I think he's awful) Simon Danczuk as deputy.

As it goes though, I'm not especially confident that the voters of Scotland would surge back en masse to overturn five figure majorities if Andy Burnham came in as a socialist tribune incarnate. I'm even less confident that's what the voters of Chipping Barnet, Canterbury and Chingford are crying out for.

 

I'd consider it far less risky to have a hard-headed return to moderate Labour with working-class appeal - I think Dan Jarvis as leader would've been the best way of communicating that, but in the absence of that I think the best option from the people running now would be Liz Kendall as leader (because like christ is Chuka going to appeal to the disaffected of Morley and Outwood on that front) and (even though I think he's awful) Simon Danczuk as deputy.

 

Again, I have to ask, do you really think the reason people Labour flopped in some of the very run-down southern towns is because Labour weren't willing to cut services enough and were too nasty to millionaires? And that reversing stances on those things would change it?

Edited May 12, 201510 yr by Danny

As it goes though, I'm not especially confident that the voters of Scotland would surge back en masse to overturn five figure majorities if Andy Burnham came in as a socialist tribune incarnate. I'm even less confident that's what the voters of Chipping Barnet, Canterbury and Chingford are crying out for.

 

I'd consider it far less risky to have a hard-headed return to moderate Labour with working-class appeal - I think Dan Jarvis as leader would've been the best way of communicating that, but in the absence of that I think the best option from the people running now would be Liz Kendall as leader (because like christ is Chuka going to appeal to the disaffected of Morley and Outwood on that front) and (even though I think he's awful) Simon Danczuk as deputy.

 

But imo the best chance Labour have of getting back in to power is a more-Blair based figure, which Chuka appeals to. I am making general massive rationale statements here, but there are so many people that would have been working class years ago, that are shifted in to the middle class bracket now. All that needs to happen is the Tories don't deliver on their promises, and you will attract these voters back to the party.

 

I cannot see an 'old' Labour ever getting back in to power for a long, long time. There's too much wealth around, or more importantly people who have aspirations to be wealthy!

But imo the best chance Labour have of getting back in to power is a more-Blair based figure, which Chuka appeals to. I am making general massive rationale statements here, but there are so many people that would have been working class years ago, that are shifted in to the middle class bracket now. All that needs to happen is the Tories don't deliver on their promises, and you will attract these voters back to the party.

 

I cannot see an 'old' Labour ever getting back in to power for a long, long time. There's too much wealth around, or more importantly people who have aspirations to be wealthy!

 

But the thing is that most of the seats where Labour flopped this time are actually lower-class. Wirral West near me is filled with nice houses and people "aspirational" and doing well, and that had one of the biggest swings to Labour in the country, and they got almost as good a share of the vote there as Blair did! (Admittedly part of that was that a "scouse effect".)

Edited May 12, 201510 yr by Danny

It's hard to make random statements about this election because in seats labour held their vote slightly increased but in seats they couldn't get back it's hard to know whether people were spooked by the SNP threat - the only certain thing was the rise of UKIP in the north so old labour voters are moving a bit from us!

As it goes though, I'm not especially confident that the voters of Scotland would surge back en masse to overturn five figure majorities if Andy Burnham came in as a socialist tribune incarnate. I'm even less confident that's what the voters of Chipping Barnet, Canterbury and Chingford are crying out for.

 

I'd consider it far less risky to have a hard-headed return to moderate Labour with working-class appeal - I think Dan Jarvis as leader would've been the best way of communicating that, but in the absence of that I think the best option from the people running now would be Liz Kendall as leader (because like christ is Chuka going to appeal to the disaffected of Morley and Outwood on that front) and (even though I think he's awful) Simon Danczuk as deputy.

 

Exactly right about Simon and I agree he is a hateful shite although he always has his constituents in mind when he's being particularly right wing. Trying to tend off UKIP!

Again, I have to ask, do you really think the reason people Labour flopped in some of the very run-down southern towns is because Labour weren't willing to cut services enough and were too nasty to millionaires? And that reversing stances on those things would change it?

No, I think it's because we had far too much of a focus on the bottom and top of society and not really much of an offer for people in between (and I don't think we did badly because we were 'too nasty to millionaires' for that matter). I think we flopped in the run-down white working-class areas because we weren't at all culturally credible to them - that loathing of the Westminster elite didn't really lend itself well to a vote for Ed Miliband, hence why I think we need someone like Simon Danczuk in the top team.

 

It rather demonstrates how impotent Ed was as a politician that most anti-austerity people saw him as pro-austerity and most everyone else didn't think he was in favour of spending cuts at all. Ditto immigration.

But the thing is that most of the seats where Labour flopped this time are actually lower-class. Wirral West near me is filled with nice houses and people "aspirational" and doing well, and that had one of the biggest swings to Labour in the country, and they got almost as good a share of the vote there as Blair did! (Admittedly part of that was that a "scouse effect".)

 

It was DEEPLY satisfying to see Esther McVey kicked out on Friday morning. :D

But imo the best chance Labour have of getting back in to power is a more-Blair based figure, which Chuka appeals to. I am making general massive rationale statements here, but there are so many people that would have been working class years ago, that are shifted in to the middle class bracket now. All that needs to happen is the Tories don't deliver on their promises, and you will attract these voters back to the party.

 

I cannot see an 'old' Labour ever getting back in to power for a long, long time. There's too much wealth around, or more importantly people who have aspirations to be wealthy!

The Tories failed to deliver on a lot of their promises over the last five years. It doesn't seem to have done them any harm.

No, I think it's because we had far too much of a focus on the bottom and top of society and not really much of an offer for people in between (and I don't think we did badly because we were 'too nasty to millionaires' for that matter). I think we flopped in the run-down white working-class areas because we weren't at all culturally credible to them - that loathing of the Westminster elite didn't really lend itself well to a vote for Ed Miliband, hence why I think we need someone like Simon Danczuk in the top team.

 

It rather demonstrates how impotent Ed was as a politician that most anti-austerity people saw him as pro-austerity and most everyone else didn't think he was in favour of spending cuts at all. Ditto immigration.

 

Do you disagree then with all the crap Mandelson and Umunna et al are spouting then? (I'll admit Liz Kendall despite her "Blairite" moniker has not said anything I much disagree with....yet).

 

To be honest, I think the main difference between the North and the South is that southerners are just more likely to believe scare stories about Labour (and scare stories are ALWAYS going to be whipped up no matter how much Labour moves to the "centre"--they were there even in 1997). In the north, because people are more likely to have parents who always voted Labour or know the local Labour MP or councillors, they know that Labour aren't the scary monsters of caricature so are more likely to give them the benefit of the doubt when scare stories come, whereas it's not the same in the south because there's not the same Labour history.

 

Tbh, I think the only way of getting around is to have a leader who has the right personality and charisma to drown out the media nonsense and get through to people who are in areas where Labour don't have much success (and Ed Miliband was certainly not that person for all his supposed "improvements" in the campaign), but changing policies won't solve anything on it's own IMO.

Edited May 12, 201510 yr by Danny

It was DEEPLY satisfying to see Esther McVey kicked out on Friday morning. :D

I loved the way that, when she was interviewed shortly after her result, she forgot that she was supposed to play up her scouse accent. It gradually went from a vaguely scouse accent to a fairly thick one as the interview progressed and she remembered her instructions :lol:

I loved the way that, when she was interviewed shortly after her result, she forgot that she was supposed to play up her scouse accent. It gradually went from a vaguely scouse accent to a fairly thick one as the interview progressed and she remembered her instructions :lol:

 

Was that the interview with her spine-chilling "I'll be back" THREAT at the end?

Edited May 12, 201510 yr by Danny

The Tories failed to deliver on a lot of their promises over the last five years. It doesn't seem to have done them any harm.

 

But we are coming out of the worst economic crash for almost 100 years. It was going to be difficult for any party.

Quite, but that doesn't really have anything to do with pledges to have no top-down reorganisations of the NHS.

Do you disagree then with all the crap Mandelson and Umunna et al are spouting then? (I'll admit Liz Kendall despite her "Blairite" moniker has not said anything I much disagree with....yet).

 

To be honest, I think the main difference between the North and the South is that southerners are just more likely to believe scare stories about Labour (and scare stories are ALWAYS going to be whipped up no matter how much Labour moves to the "centre"--they were there even in 1997). In the north, because people are more likely to have parents who always voted Labour or know the local Labour MP or councillors, they know that Labour aren't the scary monsters of caricature so are more likely to give them the benefit of the doubt when scare stories come, whereas it's not the same in the south because there's not the same Labour history.

 

Tbh, I think the only way of getting around is to have a leader who has the right personality and charisma to drown out the media nonsense and get through to people who are in areas where Labour don't have much success (and Ed Miliband was certainly not that person for all his supposed "improvements" in the campaign), but changing policies won't solve anything on it's own IMO.

This is why I wanted Dan Jarvis.

 

And yes - I think Mandelson's proscriptions are entirely too two-dimensional. And I'm not at all impressed by Chuka Umunna so far.

I think it's time the centre-right Blairites of the labour party let go of New Labour now. We have a situation where a right wing party are in government whilst being extremely divisive. There's a lot of appetite for a left wing party to counter the right's stance on austerity and big business and public services and so on, but Labour won't make any progress whilst they represent a weird middle ground which isn't really any more left than it is right. The Libs also made the mistake of shifting right (the price they had to pay for a stake of power) and it killed them. Whilst they are the opposition party, labour need to truly represent a set of opposition values. I don't believe the problem this time was that they didn't court the middle classes enough, or that "aspirational" / socially mobile types didn't believe Labour had their interests at heart. The problem was (if it can be tidily diluted into just one or two arguments) that the Tories created some very convincing narratives which hurt Labour - they screwed Britain financially, they're going to break up the union. They might have stood a better chance if they had focused on countering those arguments rather than rising above to run a positive campaign - even if that did feel refreshing, it clearly wasn't reassuring. Shifting away from the left is not the answer, and I don't view Chukka as being any more in tune with the electorate than any of the privileged Tories. He speaks in horrible political rhetoric that feels over rehearsed and lacking in sincerity. Appointing he or Burnham would be various levels of disastrous imo.

Quite, but that doesn't really have anything to do with pledges to have no top-down reorganisations of the NHS.

Precisely.

Was that the interview with her spine-chilling "I'll be back" THREAT at the end?

That's the one.