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).

 

Why?

Edited June 25, 201510 yr by Danny

Given how central fiscal responsibility is to her message, I think floating voters would be less scared a Liz Labour would overspend. With Andy I think he could persuade them, but given the inevitable Tory attacks on him being Chief Secretary to the Treasury just before the crash and 'IN HOCK TO THE UNIONS' I think the worry might be there at the back of a lot of people's minds.

 

Don't get me wrong, I don't think it would be to the degree that Andy would be a busted flush and crippled before he even started, but I think Liz would have a far easier time convincing people Labour wouldn't overspend.

Given how central fiscal responsibility is to her message, I think floating voters would be less scared a Liz Labour would overspend. With Andy I think he could persuade them, but given the inevitable Tory attacks on him being Chief Secretary to the Treasury just before the crash and 'IN HOCK TO THE UNIONS' I think the worry might be there at the back of a lot of people's minds.

 

Don't get me wrong, I don't think it would be to the degree that Andy would be a busted flush and crippled before he even started, but I think Liz would have a far easier time convincing people Labour wouldn't overspend.

 

But this is what I don't understand about this "no baggage" argument. Kendall was an adviser to Patrica Hewitt at a time when there was one of those IT projects to register doctors which infamously fell apart and wasted loads of money - and carcrash IT projects are in the public mind one of the totemic examples of Labour's incompetent financial management (along with PFI projects and "selling the gold"). I can't see how she would be more immune from those types of attacks any more than the other two.

 

And that GQRR polling showed that Labour's economic competence problems have nothing at all to do with how much Labour talks about cuts, since the polling showed a plurality (admittedly a rather narrow one) thought Labour would cut spending too quickly: http://www.gqrr.com/uk-post-election-2

all the main parties for 2 elections have fought on the basis of huge cuts, so the argument over one candidate being trusted over carrying through cuts where another one isn't is a bit moot if the voters still stick with the devil they know. 5 years from now the UK is going to be a less kind place to the poor, so the only question is whether the selfish better off do well enough out of the Tories to stick with them, and that not too many of the disadvantaged are so enraged that they will vote for any party that promises NOT to have further cuts.

 

If the Tories balance a budget by the election, it doesnt matter a jot if Kendall is seen as continuing in a financially-competent vein when the Tories will have that one wrapped up/sewn up. That won't be an electable issue. Having an actual alternative to it will be the electable issue, and offering people something the Tories won't. Otherwise they will just vote Tory again. Why wouldn't they if they have done well out of it themselves? People vote on how well they think they will do, not on how well somebody else will do.

 

y'know, just being logical about it...

But this is what I don't understand about this "no baggage" argument. Kendall was an adviser to Patrica Hewitt at a time when there was one of those IT projects to register doctors which infamously fell apart and wasted loads of money - and carcrash IT projects are in the public mind one of the totemic examples of Labour's incompetent financial management (along with PFI projects and "selling the gold"). I can't see how she would be more immune from those types of attacks any more than the other two.

 

And that GQRR polling showed that Labour's economic competence problems have nothing at all to do with how much Labour talks about cuts, since the polling showed a plurality (admittedly a rather narrow one) thought Labour would cut spending too quickly: http://www.gqrr.com/uk-post-election-2

And also showed a plurality thought Labour would overspend. You know just as well as I do that the public have contradictory views on this. At the end of the day, I'd rather tackle the thing floating voters said they were more concerned about every time we spoke to them on the doorstep - not that Labour were going to cut too fast and shatter the economy, but that Labour would get into office and spend too much again.

 

I specifically wasn't making the 'no baggage' argument, but at the end of the day, what's more likely to stick? Chief Secretary to the Treasury running a big deficit before the crash? Or adviser to a Secretary who appointed a company who did an IT project which went wrong? Just because you can MAKE an argument doesn't mean it'll stick. I don't think the former would necessarily stick. But it's a hell of a lot more likely to than the latter. Especially when the one who's doing the latter is putting financial responsibility at the very centre of their pitch in a way no other candidate is doing. The Tories tried to make out that Tony didn't really mean what he was saying either to begin with - it didn't work.

But this is what I don't understand about this "no baggage" argument. Kendall was an adviser to Patrica Hewitt at a time when there was one of those IT projects to register doctors which infamously fell apart and wasted loads of money - and carcrash IT projects are in the public mind one of the totemic examples of Labour's incompetent financial management (along with PFI projects and "selling the gold"). I can't see how she would be more immune from those types of attacks any more than the other two.

 

And that GQRR polling showed that Labour's economic competence problems have nothing at all to do with how much Labour talks about cuts, since the polling showed a plurality (admittedly a rather narrow one) thought Labour would cut spending too quickly: http://www.gqrr.com/uk-post-election-2

And also showed a plurality thought Labour would overspend. You know just as well as I do that the public have contradictory views on this. At the end of the day, I'd rather tackle the thing floating voters said they were more concerned about every time we spoke to them on the doorstep - not that Labour were going to cut too fast and shatter the economy, but that Labour would get into office and spend too much again.

 

I specifically wasn't making the 'no baggage' argument, but at the end of the day, what's more likely to stick? Chief Secretary to the Treasury running a big deficit before the crash? Or adviser to a Secretary who appointed a company who did an IT project which went wrong? Just because you can MAKE an argument doesn't mean it'll stick. I don't think the former would necessarily stick. But it's a hell of a lot more likely to than the latter. Especially when the one who's doing the latter is putting financial responsibility at the very centre of their pitch in a way no other candidate is doing. The Tories tried to make out that Tony didn't really mean what he was saying either to begin with - it didn't work.

all the main parties for 2 elections have fought on the basis of huge cuts, so the argument over one candidate being trusted over carrying through cuts where another one isn't is a bit moot if the voters still stick with the devil they know. 5 years from now the UK is going to be a less kind place to the poor, so the only question is whether the selfish better off do well enough out of the Tories to stick with them, and that not too many of the disadvantaged are so enraged that they will vote for any party that promises NOT to have further cuts.

 

If the Tories balance a budget by the election, it doesnt matter a jot if Kendall is seen as continuing in a financially-competent vein when the Tories will have that one wrapped up/sewn up. That won't be an electable issue. Having an actual alternative to it will be the electable issue, and offering people something the Tories won't. Otherwise they will just vote Tory again. Why wouldn't they if they have done well out of it themselves? People vote on how well they think they will do, not on how well somebody else will do.

 

y'know, just being logical about it...

It's not 'just being logical about it' at all. Plenty of people want fairness but also don't want overspending, and think that it's a false choice to act like the two are polar opposites. Plenty of them pinched their nose and voted Tory last month, but would quite like a party that could deliver fairness and opportunity but without blowing the bank. Y'know, like they expected (and got mostly) from New Labour.

And also showed a plurality thought Labour would overspend. You know just as well as I do that the public have contradictory views on this. At the end of the day, I'd rather tackle the thing floating voters said they were more concerned about every time we spoke to them on the doorstep - not that Labour were going to cut too fast and shatter the economy, but that Labour would get into office and spend too much again.

 

I specifically wasn't making the 'no baggage' argument, but at the end of the day, what's more likely to stick? Chief Secretary to the Treasury running a big deficit before the crash? Or adviser to a Secretary who appointed a company who did an IT project which went wrong? Just because you can MAKE an argument doesn't mean it'll stick. I don't think the former would necessarily stick. But it's a hell of a lot more likely to than the latter. Especially when the one who's doing the latter is putting financial responsibility at the very centre of their pitch in a way no other candidate is doing. The Tories tried to make out that Tony didn't really mean what he was saying either to begin with - it didn't work.

 

So doesn't that just go to show how Labour prattling on about cuts is not only the morally wrong thing to do, it doesn't do anything to solve the perception that Labour is incompetent at handling money, if people simultaneously thought they would cut too much and spend too much at the same time?

Edited June 25, 201510 yr by Danny

So doesn't that just go to show how Labour prattling on about cuts is not only the morally wrong thing to do, it doesn't do anything to solve the perception that Labour is incompetent at handling money, if people simultaneously thought they would cut too much and spend too much at the same time?

I rather consider that those who thought Labour would cut too fast aren't concomitant with the people who think Labour would overspend and who happen to be the swing voters.

 

After the horrors of last month I never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever want to entrust another election to the seductive yet painful myth that Britain houses a progressive majority. If we have a candidate who can unite Labour, Jeremy Hunt, The Sun, Rod Liddle and Nigel Farage behind a platform that will put full force behind a living wage and funding for early education to break down inequalities, I'll take it. I just hope Labour will too.

Good idea from Mr Corbyn - no pussy footing around with his policies -

 

http://labourlist.org/2015/06/jeremy-corby...rivate-tenants/

It's not 'just being logical about it' at all. Plenty of people want fairness but also don't want overspending, and think that it's a false choice to act like the two are polar opposites. Plenty of them pinched their nose and voted Tory last month, but would quite like a party that could deliver fairness and opportunity but without blowing the bank. Y'know, like they expected (and got mostly) from New Labour.

 

unfortunately New labour, despite protests to the contrary, DID blow the bank. Trying to perpetuate the myth that they were economically credible when we are living with the results of it is just giving the next election to the Conservatives again. Yes it was a world banking crisis, but New Labour chose to suck up to instruments of our misery, to not oversee them properly, to let them get too big, to pay huge wages to idiots who had no idea what they were doing or selling. They also allowed the people of the UK to rack up massive trillion pound debts and did nothing about it. Balancing books (which they didn't anyway) from taxes paid by banks who were merrily destroying economies isn't really balancing the economy because they were fake temporary profit-related chunks of cash,

 

It just took a few years for the full effect of this to come through into the UK economy. The current governeor of the Bank Of England has been hired because he managed to avoid a good deal of the problems that New Labour didn't.

 

I am not a Tory supporter and these are facts....

That wasn't the debate we were having though. The point was that there is an audience that wants fairness but also doesn't want overspending. Say what you will, they trusted New Labour on both and didn't just go 'wah Tory-lite!'.

I rather consider that those who thought Labour would cut too fast aren't concomitant with the people who think Labour would overspend and who happen to be the swing voters.

 

Not really. Apparently even in Scotland, focus groups would be one minute castigating Labour for signing up to Tory cuts, then the next minute saying they didn't trust Labour with the economy. The competence problem has nothing at all to do with how much or little they talk about cuts, it's to do with the perception they messed things up last time, and the only way to remedy the competence problem is to correct that perception.

 

(I also think there was an additional leadership thing where people thought Ed would be too weak to stand up to strong-willed people if demands were made of him, which is why the "Ed in Salmond's pocket" meme was so damaging -- and that's probably the one and only good argument for Yvette Cooper since she's the only one who seems "tough".)

 

After the horrors of last month I never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever want to entrust another election to the seductive yet painful myth that Britain houses a progressive majority.

 

Straw-man alert!

Edited June 26, 201510 yr by Danny

Not really. Apparently even in Scotland, focus groups would be one minute castigating Labour for signing up to Tory cuts, then the next minute saying they didn't trust Labour with the economy. The competence problem has nothing at all to do with how much or little they talk about cuts, it's to do with the perception they messed things up last time, and the only way to remedy the competence problem is to correct that perception.

 

(I also think there was an additional leadership thing where people thought Ed would be too weak to stand up to strong-willed people if demands were made of him, which is why the "Ed in Salmond's pocket" meme was so damaging -- and that's probably the one and only good argument for Yvette Cooper since she's the only one who seems "tough".)

I'm not even going to get into how supercontradictory focus group opinions ended up in Scotland, because I think it's even moreso the case there than in the rest of the UK.

 

Nothing? Nothing at all? You're telling me that if we had a leader who people actually *believed* would be fiscally competent and who they trusted to not overspend that the competence problem would still be there? The problem with Ed Miliband is that he was literally the worst of all worlds - people could tell he didn't really care that much about economic competence and that it wasn't a focus for him, but rather something he was paying lip service to. Yet at the same time there were plenty of people who weren't a fan of what he was paying lip service to. He lost both groups. You can go one way or another, but you can't pretend that someone who tried to have it both ways is really evidence that actually going for prudence and taking it seriously wouldn't work. And it's far more achievable than the counterproposal of 'mythbusting', which nobody ever bloody believes, especially when the busting of that myth is *exactly* what is most convenient for your party.

 

'Hi, here's this problem I have with you from ten years ago.'

'Oh, that's totally fine, it wasn't actually a problem at all!'

'Yeah, you're not really listening to me, I don't believe you, and it totally is a problem.'

'Nope, you were being lied to.'

'Yeah, you're kind of treating me like an idiot, this isn't really persuading me. I kind of like everything else you've got going on, I'd just prefer it if you could reassure me on how you'd make sure this particular thing doesn't happen again.'

'No, it was all fine. What are you, a Tory?'

 

Would Labour have got anywhere if they'd spent the 90s arguing that the Winter of Discontent wasn't really that bad? No, they reassured people by making it their mission to persuade people they'd keep to prudent spending plans - and because they made it their mission and a central purpose to convince people rather than just throwing out a speech every couple of months on how they'd stick to sensible spending plans, people believed that they could be trusted and that Labour had changed. Arguing that you were in the right all along ten, fifteen years after the fact will get you nowhere with an electorate that's already decided that you overspent.

 

(OT: do you not think Liz comes across as tough at all? I mean I don't really want to link to that odd Telegraph masturbation fantasy from the other day because I'm still trying to scour my eyes, but even if not tough I'd imagine most people would cede she comes off direct and as if she'd hold someone to account.)

 

Straw-man alert!

It was more following on from the first part of the post. I'd rather not try and unite all of the voters who thought Labour would cut too much, primarily because I think that even if we *did* reassure them on that, a significant chunk would proceed to find another problem for why they 'just can't bring themselves to vote Labour' (this is specifically a criticism aside from the economic debate). Or they'd just go 'oh I like Labour and I want them to win, but I'm voting Green instead'. For an ideological wing that's supposed to be the one in favour of collective action, parts of the left are absurdly self-absorbed and individualistic compared with the right.

(OT: do you not think Liz comes across as tough at all? I mean I don't really want to link to that odd Telegraph masturbation fantasy from the other day because I'm still trying to scour my eyes, but even if not tough I'd imagine most people would cede she comes off direct and as if she'd hold someone to account.)

 

No - in that Andrew Marr interview, when she was trying to sound "tough", she gave off all the gravitas of a supply teacher. Fairly or unfairly, I also think she comes across as pretty dim tbh - Dan Hodges aptly compared her to Sarah Palin. She does have a tendency like Palin to sound like she's memorised a few lines without really understanding what she's saying.

 

(To be fair, Burnham would have much the same problems - although I think people would like him, and certainly wouldn't have any time for this laughable idea that he was "left-wing", I do wonder if people might think at the end of the day that he was too nice to be "tough" enough to be PM.)

Edited June 26, 201510 yr by Danny

I think Burnham tends to speak firmly, from what I've seen. I think he's the one who would most be able to make Cameron look less presidential at PMQT, and that's not a bad thing and having a northern accent rather than a posh school accent can't hurt convince disgruntled working class Labour supporters more.

 

Ignoring policies of course, which are still a bit unclear.

Even though Andy had a very good education to of course!

Even though Andy had a very good education to of course!

 

I also speak with a (watered-down) northern accent and have had a decent education, thanks to student grants and parental contributions (which i did without by working in the summers), so i see that as a good thing :lol: It's a pity he doesn't have work experience of the real non-politics world, but then none of the realistic candidates much do. Perhaps that's why we have no emotional connection with them.

 

Like so many ruling the country they live and breathe the rarified air governing the rest of us and deciding what's best for us. How lucky we all are to have so many experts who know all about us and what we need without actually doing physical work or office work or shop work or even professional skilled work..... :teresa:

Survey of Labour councillors

 

Leadership

 

36% Andy Burnham

30% Yvette Cooper

19% Jeremy Corbyn

15% Liz Kendall

 

 

Deputy

 

40% Tom Watson

27% Caroline Flint

18% Stella Creasy

8% Angela Eagle

7% Ben Bradshaw

Edited July 1, 201510 yr by Danny

Harry Thompson ‏@HMThompson_ 1h1 hour ago

After a few hours canvassing in what should be prime Kendall territory, I'm pretty much ready to predict this: Liz Kendall will come last

 

Harry Thompson ‏@HMThompson_ 1h1 hour ago

been thinking it for a while, but calling up a middle class area and having her come dead last confirms it in my mind!