It's not that - on paper she shouldn't struggle with the MPs. Unite are leaning on MPs they fund who would otherwise nominate her and threatening to pull money if they do, which is pretty despicable.

It's not that - on paper she shouldn't struggle with the MPs. Unite are leaning on MPs they fund who would otherwise nominate her and threatening to pull money if they do, which is pretty despicable.

 

Shouldn't she? Most of the Blairites have left Parliament now to go make millions. Almost all of those whining are ex-MPs (not that you'd know it from the amount of airtime the BBC gives them).

Edited May 20, 201510 yr by Danny

That would be most of the Blair Cabinet members, not most of the Blairites.

 

The PLP still has a lot of New Labourites - if you'll recall, David Miliband did get over a hundred first preferences. Granted, not all were New Labour, but not all who voted for other candidates weren't.

David Miliband was not running on a hard-right platform of Labour signing up to massive spending cuts, opposing tax rises for the rich and "wrapping their arms round" greedy big businesses. Plus his main USP was that he looked like a "ready-made prime minister" leaving aside his political views (which I'm not even sure the most charitable person could say about Liz bloody Kendall).

Edited May 20, 201510 yr by Danny

You're changing the goalposts of the conversation here (though on the subject - Andy Burnham's running on a hard right platform now?), but I don't think you'd find many in the PLP who called any of the platforms so far hard right. As it goes, Liz Kendall will get to 35 nominations - there'll be havoc if not given how much Unite are fighting to keep her off the ballot. Even people who don't like Liz Kendall would probably take umbrage at that straight after the whole Jim business.

And speaking as a union member and non-Labour-party member, my thought is perhaps Labour should be telling one man (presumably he hasn't held a referendum of members to speak for them, it's just his personal opinion based on talking to those around him, or not) to go take a running jump. It's not his business to demand who leads the party, it's his business to represent the best interests of his members, and that means winning an election and democracy. He is just handing over more propaganda victories to the right wing press and fragmenting the Labour party.

 

What's he afraid of? That he won't get the candidate of choice in a democratic election? Seem to recall the process was brought in by the previous candidate of choice? Why didn't he speak up then about it.....?

 

If I don't get my way I'm going to stamp my feet and threaten to withdraw funds from the only party likely to get in power and look after the interests of party members..? Yeh, right. Call his bluff.

130 Labour MPs are funded by Unite!

130 Labour MPs are funded by Unite!

 

Funny...I thought they were funded by the tax payer... can't manage on the salary obviously. :lol:

Funny...I thought they were funded by the tax payer... can't manage on the salary obviously. :lol:

Well no, the vast majority of candidates don't fund the bulk of their campaigns through their own salary, because that's obviously a really unreasonable thing to expect given the costs involved. Loads end up having to take out loans or remortgage their houses on top of any fundraising they do.

 

-x-

 

Liz Kendall's got the numbers.

I actually agree that Len McCluskey should butt out. Who "the unions" back does not really have anything to do with which candidate is left-wing anyway, it's more about who has spent the last few years stroking the union barons' egos.

 

Also I hope Kendall does get through, purely because I want her to be smashed by the membership (who know full well that huge cuts and sucking up to fat cats is the last thing that's going to get the attention of people who've stopped listening to Labour) so that the Blairites can't get away with the illusion that the election was "stolen" from them.

Vince Cable has called for a Labour/LibDem pact at the next election.

it's a reasoned response to events and the future, a reasonable analysis, and Cable has shown he knows what he's talking about in the past.

 

Labour would do well to read it and pay attention, not as if the lib-dems having anything much left to lose and labour have everything to lose.

 

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/...ctims-tory-fear

"Labour were too left-wing!!!!11" contradicted by a re-contact poll after the election:

 

Labour should cut public spending QUICKER than they plan: 34%

Labour should cut public spending SLOWER than they plan: 39%

 

 

Labour is too TOUGH on big business and banks: 22%

Labour is too SOFT on big business and banks: 42%

 

Labour should be more left-wing: 19%

Labour should be more right-wing: 21%

 

Labour should increase taxes on the rich: 46%

Labour is too tough on investors and wealthy people: 35%

 

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

Edited May 21, 201510 yr by Danny

"Labour were too left-wing!!!!11" contradicted by a re-contact poll after the election:

 

Labour should be more left-wing: 19%

Labour should be more right-wing: 21%

 

Yeah, I'm all in favour of Labour being a party of wishy-washy centrism.

Vince Cable has called for a Labour/LibDem pact at the next election.

 

 

Stinks of desperation. Down to 8 MP's and ready to do anything to improve their bleak situation.

Stinks of desperation. Down to 8 MP's and ready to do anything to improve their bleak situation.

 

It's arguably in Labour's interests too though, since it could deprive the Tories of seats.

Stinks of desperation. Down to 8 MP's and ready to do anything to improve their bleak situation.

 

No, smacks of reality. Labour are the ones who didn't convince voters so they switched to the tories at the expense of the libdems. On behalf of those of us who now have to suffer a Tory government unleashed (the libdems may as well have not bothered going into coalition at all and kept their MP's even if the economy would have been in a sorrier state from lack of getting anything through): serves Labour right for forgetting who the real enemy was and falling for every Tory trick and manipulation. It was that petty attitude that lost them the election. Those libdem seats would have been enough to form a coalition government. Which is a better option than the one we ended up with...

 

Libdems don't need to do anything to improve their situation other than go back to their principles and refuse to ever enter into another coalition with either party unless every single item in their manifesto gets through. Oh hang on, that's not a "coalition" is it, that's a majority government and we know how much they keep their promises (reality check: go back and check all previous governments records). :P

"Labour were too left-wing!!!!11" contradicted by a re-contact poll after the election:

 

Labour should cut public spending QUICKER than they plan: 34%

Labour should cut public spending SLOWER than they plan: 39%

Labour is too TOUGH on big business and banks: 22%

Labour is too SOFT on big business and banks: 42%

 

Labour should be more left-wing: 19%

Labour should be more right-wing: 21%

 

Labour should increase taxes on the rich: 46%

Labour is too tough on investors and wealthy people: 35%

 

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

 

are these the same pollsters that predicted a hung parliament.....? :teresa:

 

are these the same pollsters that predicted a hung parliament.....? :teresa:

 

This poll is weighted to the real results of the election.

People vote Lib Dem in Tory-LD marginals at least partly because they can't stomach voting Labour. A pact would be odd.