Stella Creasy is the candidate who has the indiest taste in music, given that she wrote the sleeve notes to the reissue of an album by The Wedding Present.

When I saw her a couple of years ago she made a point of the fact that she was going to see Thor 2 in the cinema afterwards. It was... odd.

I assumed that Kendall by now would have started to really carve out her own path in the contest which would make her appear distinctive outside of the Guardian/New Statesman articles fawning over how she likes Dr. Dre. She doesn't seem to have done that yet, which makes me less convinced that she'd do it as leader.

Have there been many of those?!

 

-x-

 

In response to both Danny and that, partly anecdotal I'm aware, but Liz and Jeremy are the only two candidates I've seen people who only pay casual attention to politics say they love (or hate), so indistinctive really isn't the word I'd use - especially given they're the only two who can really be said to have a clear message on where they'd take the party. I think it also says a bit that the only poll so far which compares broader public and Labour supporter support for each of the candidates is finding 11% support (amongst both groups - and the only candidate where the public support is close to the Labour support) for a candidate where literally neither group would have heard of her prior to now, so she's clearly making some impression on a public that had no idea who she was six weeks ago. It's a shame there's not really a way of gauging how much of the support for Andy/Yvette has come from the campaign so far or from general name recognition from the last ten years.

Oh, and Stella for Deputy, of course.

The big problem for labour is that these four candidates are all charisma vacuums, with the exception of Kendall who is basically a Tory in a pretty wig. It's hard to imagine the public (labour voters lost to ukip/cons specifically) being won over by them. A glance at the leadership of almost any European country indicates that having charisma is as big a deal as saying the right things politically. And labour are pretty short on that right now.

 

The upside is that if they spunk Burnham away on a 2020 election all but guaranteed to be lost to Boris, he's out of the picture in time for 2025 by which time maybe labour will have finally decided to start playing the political game with a bit more savvy.

I certainly don't know any Tories who give a shit about boosting early years spending to shatter inequalities, support trade union rights, and consider the aim of deficit reduction to spend less on interest and more on public services rather than tax cuts.

Have there been many of those?!

 

-x-

 

In response to both Danny and that, partly anecdotal I'm aware, but Liz and Jeremy are the only two candidates I've seen people who only pay casual attention to politics say they love (or hate), so indistinctive really isn't the word I'd use - especially given they're the only two who can really be said to have a clear message on where they'd take the party. I think it also says a bit that the only poll so far which compares broader public and Labour supporter support for each of the candidates is finding 11% support (amongst both groups - and the only candidate where the public support is close to the Labour support) for a candidate where literally neither group would have heard of her prior to now, so she's clearly making some impression on a public that had no idea who she was six weeks ago. It's a shame there's not really a way of gauging how much of the support for Andy/Yvette has come from the campaign so far or from general name recognition from the last ten years.

One is directly caused by the other - right now Liz is struggling to break out of the Blairite/free schools/defence spending typecast which has led to more people feeling immediately like they know if they're with or against her. She won't win by simply being the most moderate/right wing - she needs a message akin to Yvette's on childcare or Andy's on healthcare and being Northern. Admittedly those two have a head start on her because of name recognition.

My point wasn't so much that that would be enough to win the leadership election, but that it's difficult to characterise it as being indistinctive.

 

(For what it's worth - and given it's anecdotal, I know that's not much - the ones I know who've said they like her *hate* Blair, so she's capable of having a semblance of appeal beyond just simply 'Blair 2 The Future'. I'd like her to be channeling her post-election Neil interview more)

I certainly don't know any Tories who give a shit about boosting early years spending to shatter inequalities, support trade union rights, and consider the aim of deficit reduction to spend less on interest and more on public services rather than tax cuts.

 

This has always been such a strange argument. 'Massively cut back spending on public services, so that there's more money to spend on public services' ??? It's like saying if I sell all my furniture then I'll have the money to buy the equipment to build new furniture from scratch.

 

Even most Tories want good public services in an ideal world - it's a matter of priorities, and Tories believe that having immaculate public finances is more important than a more equal society with good public services (for there's always going to be a conflict between the two, since getting those public services inevitably cost lots of money). Kendall has made it pretty clear she agrees with them.

Edited June 20, 201510 yr by Danny

This has always been such a strange argument. 'Massively cut back spending on public services, so that there's more money to spend on public services' ??? It's like saying if I sell all my furniture then I'll have the money to buy the equipment to build new furniture from scratch.

1. That assumes closing the deficit entirely through spending cuts.

2. It's more like saying 'damn, maybe I should cut back how much I'm borrowing from Wonga* every month because it means progressively more of my earnings over time goes straight to the interest for that, which is both unsustainable and a sum that would cover the whole education budget and in the not too distant future could end up being bigger than the actual deficit itself'. Closing the deficit doesn't mean ending all public spending - there'd still be £600bn of it there even if the deficit were funded entirely through spending cuts.

 

*actually now no longer hyperbolic given Wonga's fabulous new Stella Creasy-induced super-low interest rates *.*

 

Even most Tories want good public services in an ideal world - it's a matter of priorities, and Tories believe that having immaculate public finances is more important than a more equal society with good public services (for there's always going to be a conflict between the two, since getting those public services inevitably cost lots of money). Kendall has made it pretty clear she agrees with them.

Not really? The central Tory ideology isn't so much immaculate finances as cutting spending to make room for tax cuts. It involves vaguely immaculate finances at some stage on the way, but it's a means to an end rather than the end in itself.

Latest poll of the public (presumably with don't know's excluded since the figures are so high?):

 

36% Andy Burnham

25% Liz Kendall

20% Yvette Cooper

18% Jeremy Corbyn

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/polit...s-10340208.html

 

Kendall does seem to be picking up steam, although it's still hardly much of a sign that she's the "electable" candidate who Tory voters would be flocking to if she's still closer to Corbyn than she is to Burnham even after weeks of fawning media coverage.

 

I was starting to think Yvette Cooper would be more of a vote-winner than Andy, but this poll has given me second thoughts.

Unless Yvette actually says something at some point that recognises it isn't the 2010 hustings (seriously, I think literally everything she's said was said by someone or another at the time), I'm fairly sure I'll be voting Andy as second preference now.

 

(I WILL bite and say that Liz's ratings are going up with every poll and we've still got another two months to go. Still not sure if she can win the selection, but this certainly doesn't hurt.)

Unless Yvette actually says something at some point that recognises it isn't the 2010 hustings (seriously, I think literally everything she's said was said by someone or another at the time), I'm fairly sure I'll be voting Andy as second preference now.

 

(I WILL bite and say that Liz's ratings are going up with every poll and we've still got another two months to go. Still not sure if she can win the selection, but this certainly doesn't hurt.)

 

So are Jezza's, by that logic :lol:

Well, as the only two candidates with clear and straight-forward messages that's no surprise... :angel:

Interesting that Labour MPs believe Yvette may win when the second preferences are re-allocated from Corbyn (brother of the weather nut).

 

All of this labelling of Liz as a 'Tory' is a little pathetic and does nothing to move the debate on beyond childish name-calling rather than discussion of the ACTUAL issues. It seems Andy is going to raise home ownership soon so that will definitely boost his campaign - I think it is one of, if not THE most important issues facing the country in the next decade.

Interesting that Labour MPs believe Yvette may win when the second preferences are re-allocated from Corbyn (brother of the weather nut).

 

All of this labelling of Liz as a 'Tory' is a little pathetic and does nothing to move the debate on beyond childish name-calling rather than discussion of the ACTUAL issues. It seems Andy is going to raise home ownership soon so that will definitely boost his campaign - I think it is one of, if not THE most important issues facing the country in the next decade.

 

It's only name-calling if you think being called a Tory is in itself an insult :P Nothing wrong with being a tory in general, but there is something wrong about it if you're running for the leadership of what's supposed to be the main opposition party.

 

In any case, now that the 'electability'/'one the Tories fear' argument has been blown out of the water, no doubt the Blairites will fall back onto the feeble "no baggage" argument now (despite the fact she was a special adviser frequently during the Blair government and so the Tories would have just as much ammunition to throw at her as at Burnham or Cooper).

In any case, now that the 'electability'/'one the Tories fear' argument has been blown out of the water, no doubt the Blairites will fall back onto the feeble "no baggage" argument now (despite the fact she was a special adviser frequently during the Blair government and so the Tories would have just as much ammunition to throw at her as at Burnham or Cooper).

Blown out of the water? She's increased with every single poll and people have only known who she is for six weeks, and even in that poll she's the only one with broad support across the country rather than Burnham, whose support is larger but mainly concentrated in the North West. At the end of the day, Burnham may well end up being more popular than Liz, but less than halfway through the contest when most people *still* don't know her is hardly the time to call it when the others have had profile for ten years! And it still doesn't change that she IS the one the Tories fear - I'm at peace with Andy winning, but there's no denying that if he does they're going to be popping corks at Number 10.

Blown out of the water? She's increased with every single poll and people have only known who she is for six weeks. Even in that poll she's the only one with broad support across the country rather than Burnham, whose support is larger but mainly concentrated in the North West and Yorkshire.

 

At the end of the day, this time in three months Burnham may well end up being more popular than Liz, but less than halfway through the contest when most people *still* don't know her is hardly the time to call it! (Especially when the others have had profile for ten years and haven't been able to turn that into a game-ending advantage.) And it still doesn't change that she IS the one the Tories fear - I'm at peace with Andy winning, but there's no denying that if he does (or if Yvette Cooper's 'literally no change indicated from Ed' platform does) they're going to be popping corks at Number 10.

 

I love it. Apparently being closer to Jeremy Corbyn than to the frontrunner is a triumph for someone whose whole shtick is "I'm the one who will win elections" :lol: Being a respectable second would be decent and a platform to build on if her platform was about inspiring policies which captured Labour members' hearts (with any popularity being a bonus), but it's not, her pitch is entirely based around her supposed electability. Polls like this which show her so far off the pace are the equivalent of the damage that would be done to Burnham's campaign if he was suddenly exposed as having grown up in a southern metropolitan-bubble household.

 

Also, on the point about Burnham being strongest in Labour heartlands - by the same logic, Liz Kendall is apparently most popular with young people (who presumably will largely be either non-voters or Labour voters already), while Andy does extremely well with old people (the ones who actually vote and who Labour got spanked with this time).

Edited June 25, 201510 yr by Danny

I love it. Apparently being closer to Jeremy Corbyn than to the frontrunner is a triumph for someone whose whole shtick is "I'm the one who will win elections" :lol: Being a respectable second would be decent and a platform to build on if her platform was about inspiring policies which captured Labour members' hearts (with any popularity being a bonus), but it's not, her pitch is entirely based around her supposed electability. Polls like this which show her so far off the pace are the equivalent of the damage that would be done to Burnham's campaign if he was suddenly exposed as having grown up in a southern metropolitan-bubble household.

 

Also, on the point about Burnham being strongest in Labour heartlands - by the same logic, Liz Kendall is apparently most popular with young people (who presumably will largely be either non-voters or Labour voters already), while Andy does extremely well with old people (the ones who actually vote and who Labour got spanked with this time).

Because it's not about where you are one month in when you're building profile (which yep, applies to all the candidates, but particularly Liz given there's no reason any normal person would have heard of her before now), it's about the direction you're going. Which for Liz is pretty briskly up, going by the trajectory of all of the polls. If she isn't leading in any of the measures of what the public think by the end of the campaign - possible, but I think she will - you'll have a point.

 

You're right that age is an advantage. But Andy can have all the over 60s voting for him in Morecambe he likes - it won't be worth much if he doesn't start persuading more of the over 60s in Crawley.

Because it's not about where you are one month in when you're building profile (which yep, applies to all the candidates, but particularly Liz given there's no reason any normal person would have heard of her before now), it's about the direction you're going. Which for Liz is pretty briskly up, going by the trajectory of all of the polls. If she isn't leading in any of the measures of what the public think by the end of the campaign - possible, but I think she will - you'll have a point.

 

You're right that age is an advantage. But Andy can have all the over 60s voting for him in Morecambe he likes - it won't be worth much if he doesn't start persuading more of the over 60s in Crawley.

 

But again, I don't understand what the thought process is that Kendall would do better than Burnham in some of these working-class southern and Midlands towns? I thought you agreed that those places were not in any way repelled by Labour's supposedly "left-wing" policies on taxes and businesses.

 

Imo, the only place Kendall would do better than Andy in a general election is London, I could just see some of the Guardianistas sneering at Burnham and defecting to the Greens - but Labour have margin for error there anyway.

Edited June 25, 201510 yr by Danny

But again, I don't understand what the thought process is that Kendall would do better than Burnham in some of these working-class southern and Midlands towns? I thought you agreed that those places were not in any way repelled by Labour's supposedly "left-wing" policies on taxes and businesses.

Because it's not about any of those policies individually being things that people disagree with, it's about the general perception of whether Labour can be trusted with the economy. I think they're far more likely to trust a Liz-led Labour Party on that than one led by Andy (though that isn't to say that I don't believe Andy *could* be trusted on the economy).