Interestingly, this item from 2010 showed "Red Andy" as the favourite of a group of swing voters (SOUTHERN "aspirational" swing voters at that), ahead of both Milibands.

 

He also wasn't really characterised as 'Red Andy' in 2010.

When it comes to taking on a force that had successfully claimed the mantle of being to the left of Labour and consolidated support for independence, yes. They probably aren't the worst at judging what works for a Labour leader whose prime opposition would be themselves though - if we're using single examples as enough to 'show' these things, they were pretty on the mark celebrating Ed Miliband as the worst realistic choice.

 

Interestingly, Osborne thought Andy Burnham was the biggest threat in 2010 as someone who could consolidate New Labour's successes with a working class politics. In retrospect, I agree (DM still being overrated to my mind). He's been on far too much of a journey to still credibly go for that angle now though.

 

I thought you agreed a few weeks ago that Labour's loss had nothing to do with people in (far from affluent) southern towns thinking Labour would tax the rich too much or that they were supposedly "anti-business".

 

In any case, in that video, Burnham says something which you'd probably consider to be left-wing and un-New Labour (hugely increased spending on elderly care, paid for with tax increases) and that group of swing voters liked it, or in the case of that old guy who didn't like the idea, still said he'd vote for him because he was a "nice guy". An unrepresentative sample to be sure, but still.

Edited June 14, 201510 yr by Danny

He also wasn't really characterised as 'Red Andy' in 2010.

 

Wasn't he? I remember being pleasantly surprised at how much I agreed with what he said on the economy and public services. The only thing that stopped him being seen as a "left-wing" candidate was because Iraq was (mistakenly in retrospect) seen as the big issue in that contest, and Burnham was unapologetic about it.

Edited June 14, 201510 yr by Danny

I thought you agreed a few weeks ago that Labour's loss had nothing to do with people in (far from affluent) southern towns thinking Labour would tax the rich too much or that they were supposedly "anti-business".

What did I say in that message that disagreed with that? I was referring to the SNP. By his journey I'm referring more to him totally rejecting most of what New Labour did for public services - I don't really think it'll wash with people who send their kids to underperforming LEAs that have underperformed for years that the solution is just 'more money' and some blather about how their kid's school is failing because competition and they should all be comprehensive again (because of course, failing schools never existed before academies and free schools).

 

(On that sentence though, to correct: I don't think Labour's tax policy is why we lost, but I do think our anti-business perception was *a part* of why we lost.)

In any case, in that video, Burnham says something which you'd probably consider to be left-wing and un-New Labour (hugely increased spending on elderly care, paid for with tax increases) and that group of swing voters liked it, or in the case of that old guy who didn't like the idea, still said he'd vote for him because he was a "nice guy". An unrepresentative sample to be sure, but still.

Wasn't he? I remember being pleasantly surprised at how much I agreed with what he said on the economy and public services. The only thing that stopped him being seen as a "left-wing" candidate was because Iraq was (mistakenly in retrospect) seen as the big issue in that contest, and Burnham was unapologetic about it.

He was still fairly Blairite on public services and law and order in 2010! The Social Care Service was in the 2010 manifesto, and he costed it with a land value tax in his leadership election - totally New Labour, given land value taxes mostly affect inherited wealth, so it's something only the most idiotic of Tories would characterise as 'anti-aspiration/hard work' or whatever.

 

Something being left-wing doesn't make it de facto 'un-New Labour'. The minimum wage and Sure Start certainly weren't right wing ideas, and neither was increased spending on the NHS with an increase in National Insurance to pay for it. What *is* un-New Labour is acting as if increased spending is a panacea in and of itself and the only solution - which is why reform was such a thing, given New Labour pretty quickly realised increased spending on its own wasn't a cure-all at all. He's kind of reverted to that position given he seems to think public services would just be fine if only they were all state-run again and we doubled spending.

What did I say in that message that disagreed with that? I was referring to the SNP. By his journey I'm referring more to him totally rejecting most of what New Labour did for public services - I don't really think it'll wash with people who send their kids to underperforming LEAs that have underperformed for years that the solution is just 'more money' and some blather about how their kid's school is failing because competition and they should all be comprehensive again (because of course, failing schools never existed before academies and free schools).

 

(On that sentence though, to correct: I don't think Labour's tax policy is why we lost, but I do think our anti-business perception was *a part* of why we lost.)

 

But both of these assertions are flatly contradicted by the only piece of polling asking about why people voted the way they did in the election: people said by overwhelming margins that they thought Labour should end "postcode lotteries" with public services and instead ensure uniformly equal standards, that they were too soft on big businesses, and that they wouldn't increase taxes on the rich enough.

 

And before the "are you really trusting polls?" excuse comes out, it doesn't really make much sense that these respondents would've been brutally honest about the fact they'd voted Conservative and their opinions on Ed Miliband or on Labour "overspending" or immigration, but then would suddenly go "shy" when asked about Labour's policies on businesses/taxes/services.

 

http://www.gqrr.com/uk-post-election-2

Edited June 14, 201510 yr by Danny

But both of these assertions are flatly contradicted by the only piece of polling asking about why people voted the way they did in the election: people said by overwhelming margins that they thought Labour should end "postcode lotteries" with public services, that they were too soft on big businesses, and that they wouldn't increase taxes on the rich enough.

Like I said - I don't think tax policy had much to do with it. And I do think postcode lotteries should be ended with public services. They existed even moreso when they were entirely state-run - the middle classes have sharper elbows. I'm a bit surprised that the Labour to Conservative figure has 'Labour is too soft on big businesses' so high (the Labour lost figure is understandable given it includes people going to the SNP), but I presume 'being soft' on big business doesn't really explain their leaving Labour given they're voting Tory.

 

I should also add that you won't find me invoking the 'are we trusting polls?' argument. As someone who worked in polling it annoys me that it's become a catch-all response already and it annoys me that it's going to be used as a hand-wave by morons for the next five years.

 

-x-

 

(Separately, on the subject of polling and its credibility: in fairness, phone polls did systematically show the Tories ahead from January - it's just that we couldn't tell at the time whether internet or phone polling was more trustworthy, as internet showed it tied or vice versa; and they're all perceived as having ruined it by having their last polls with Labour and the Tories tied. But that's still only one poll compared to the countless others demonstrating a solid trend. Basically, phone polling's been established as the gold standard.)

He was still fairly Blairite on public services and law and order in 2010! The Social Care Service was in the 2010 manifesto, and he costed it with a land value tax in his leadership election - totally New Labour, given land value taxes mostly affect inherited wealth, so it's something only the most idiotic of Tories would characterise as 'anti-aspiration/hard work' or whatever.

 

Something being left-wing doesn't make it de facto 'un-New Labour'. The minimum wage and Sure Start certainly weren't right wing ideas, and neither was increased spending on the NHS with an increase in National Insurance to pay for it. What *is* un-New Labour is acting as if increased spending is a panacea in and of itself and the only solution - which is why reform was such a thing, given New Labour pretty quickly realised increased spending on its own wasn't a cure-all at all. He's kind of reverted to that position given he seems to think public services would just be fine if only they were all state-run again and we doubled spending.

I'd argue a land value tax would have been far too radical for New Labour - the Barker Review suggested something of the sort and it ended up being watered down to the Community Infrastructure Levy, making Blair's the first Labour government since the war not to try and introduce some form of land value tax.

They didn't go for it, but it doesn't necessarily mean it's the kind of tax that was antithetical to New Labour. Certainly a far easier sell than an extra 10% on inheritance tax.

They didn't go for it, but it doesn't necessarily mean it's the kind of tax that was antithetical to New Labour. Certainly a far easier sell than an extra 10% on inheritance tax.

Easier sell, notoriously hard in practice. I actually like CIL and think it was a good compromise.

Half an hour to get nominations in. This would have all been sorted days ago had Corbyn not declared too late.

Ha - brilliant.

 

I honestly think there's an outside chance Corbyn could come top on first preferences (though he'd pick up very few lower preferences so wouldn't win overall). The scale of disillusionment with how right-wing the main contenders are seems to be off the charts.

Well, perhaps in an echo chamber populated solely by LabourList commenters. There isn't really much disillusionment (at least on how 'right wing' everyone is) amongst the membership in general, from my limited experience so far.

Well, perhaps in an echo chamber populated solely by LabourList commenters. There isn't really much disillusionment (at least on how 'right wing' everyone is) amongst the membership in general, from my limited experience so far.

 

Even Nick Palmer (former MP who hardly ever rebelled against the Blair government) is saying on Politicalbetting he might give Corbyn his first preference.

 

But I'm thinking of giving him my first preference at the moment if he's on the ballot (and I'm not your typical hard left member) - he's clearly not a likely winner of floating voters, but I'd like to send a message to the candidates that I want a clear theme from them, not just lots of platitudes.

I'm not sure failed ex-MPs are the best barometer for the mood of the membership, regardless of previous non-rebelling credentials.

Pesky facts are contradicting the Blairites' analysis of the election defeat again:

 

3) ‘Squeezed middle’ voters believe in fairness. But their idea of fairness combines both left and right

 

Everyone has a preferred explanation as to why Labour suffered such a crushing defeat at the election and everyone’s diagnosis seems, conveniently, to align with their own politics. For those on the left the problem is that Labour wasn’t left-wing enough. If they are ‘modernisers’ or ‘Blairites’ on the other hand, Ed Miliband’s Labour party had ‘veered off to the left’ and wasn’t ‘aspirational enough.

 

According to the data both are to some extent wrong. Swing voters sit on the right on some issues and on the left on others. They take a tough line on crime and welfare and want less immigration. Yet they take a left-wing approach to NHS funding and structure and private sector involvement in public services. They also want higher taxes on the rich and big business.

 

These aren’t ‘centrists’ – they take a strong line on most issues; and that line is sometimes on the right and sometimes on the left. It’s difficult with this in mind to maintain that Labour’s problem was a lack of ‘aspiration’. But that doesn’t mean the diagnosis is any more comforting for the left: Labour should take a tougher line on crime and a fairer (perhaps a more contributory) approach to welfare if it wants to win again.

 

http://leftfootforward.org/2015/06/why-eve...xchange-report/

That same thing has been published in Progress countless times. And following that quoted analysis verbatim is the exact kind of thing that does in most politicians - including Ed Miliband. It's no good to take a tough line on things if nobody actually believes you're serious about it.

That same thing has been published in Progress countless times. And following that quoted analysis is the exact kind of thing that does in most politicians - including Ed Miliband. It's no good to take a tough line on things if nobody actually believes you're serious about it.

 

That may be, but it doesn't change the fact that Kendall has the polar-opposite views to swing voters on virtually all those issues (not only is she far to the right on the economy/public services, she's apprently liberal on immigration and the EU). What happened to "compromise with the electorate"?

Edited June 15, 201510 yr by Danny

Taking Liz Kendall's position on immigration as being 'polar opposite' to the public's just shows exactly how reductive it is to boil down the public's opinion on the issue (or indeed on many) to a binary 'yes/no'.

 

Her position is that we shouldn't just go for a load of anti-immigration rhetoric as if it wins anybody over (especially when they don't believe you), but that we should do two things: first off explain why we won't do that - because immigration benefits and helps our society and our public services. But secondly, that isn't enough on its own - it rings pretty hollow to somebody whose son can't get a job if you just say 'oh actually immigration is great', so the second part is making sure that everyone can share in the benefits immigration brings by ensuring people aren't left behind and have access to training and adult education (to take the Kendall soundbite, 'we need to offer an opportunity, not a grievance' - I know, I know...) - both things that get ridiculously overlooked in the obsession with sodding tuition fees when it comes to education on the left.

 

I don't really see that position as one most people who have fairly conflicted impulses on immigration that might come out on a binary poll question as anti (recognise that it does benefit society/the NHS to a degree/don't really like the pressure on unemployment/think some people take the piss) would be opposed to. And I think a lot of people have similarly conflicted feelings on the NHS and public services that would probably look across several different polling questions as contradictory - they don't want to see them privatised or anything other than free at the point of use, but at the same time would be fairly queasy (in practice, if not always in polling) about stumping up huge sums in increased taxes to pay for improvement, and wouldn't be against the idea if they saw improvements from private involvement. I could say much the same for the deficit.

 

(OT: Have you read Drew Westen by any chance?)

Taking Liz Kendall's position on immigration as being 'polar opposite' to the public's just shows exactly how reductive it is to boil down the public's opinion on the issue (or indeed on many) to a binary 'yes/no'.

 

Her position is that we shouldn't just go for a load of anti-immigration rhetoric as if it wins anybody over (especially when they don't believe you), but that we should do two things: first off explain why we won't do that - because immigration benefits and helps our society and our public services. But secondly, that isn't enough on its own - it rings pretty hollow to somebody whose son can't get a job if you just say 'oh actually immigration is great', so the second part is making sure that everyone can share in the benefits immigration brings by ensuring people aren't left behind and have access to training and adult education (to take the Kendall soundbite, 'we need to offer an opportunity, not a grievance' - I know, I know...) - both things that get ridiculously overlooked in the obsession with sodding tuition fees when it comes to education on the left.

 

It's a shame she doesn't apply that principle to welfare then, with her backing the benefits cap and pumping about all that rhetoric about "hard work" and soforth :P

Edited June 15, 201510 yr by Danny