Did you watch the Sunday Politics interview? At least Liz has the left behind UKIP switchers in mind. I doubt Chuka thinks Labour's problems are any more complex than 1994.

 

Just watched it now. Credit where it's due, she atleast seemed a bit human and gave some non-soundbitey answers (unlike Chuka). But I just don't agree with her reasons for why Labour lost. When you look at the type of places in the South that were lost - many of them extremely deprived - I just can't understand the logic that their view of "aspiration" would be for more cuts to their services and less taxes on millionaires.

Edited May 11, 201510 yr by Danny

I don't think she thinks the 50p rate was what lost us the election. I'm fairly enthused by her bit on remembering the people globalisation has left behind - that definitely sounds like a far more positive path which would focus on offering solutions rather than the very negative view that all these people are totally helpless and have zero autonomy. Focusing as much on the hand up as the handout, etc.

Jarvis has cited his family as the reason for not standing. He has three children, two from his first wife who died of cancer. As those two children have already lost their mother, he doesn't want to leave them effectively without their father as well. He should be commended for putting his family ahead of personal ambition.

 

http://labourlist.org/2015/05/im-ready-to-...-not-as-leader/

 

I totally agree, he has gone well up in my estimation. Politics need people who put people first not a political career, which then just becomes an alternative to another profession, say, banking, industry "advisors" or lecturing for suitcases of cash.

I might be going off on a tangent here, and this might not at first seem relevant to the topic, but please hear me out, as it might be of interest.

 

Recently I've been reading the book "The Righteous Mind - Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion" by moral psycologist Jonathan Haidt, a book that I very much recommend that anyone interested in politics should read. It explains the reasons why people are attracted to certain political ideas and not others, and why liberals and conservatives think differently. Basically, he outlines his theory of Moral Foundations, of which he identifies six, which are -

 

Care/harm: cherishing and protecting others.

Fairness/cheating: rendering justice according to shared rules. (Alternate name: Proportionality)

Liberty/oppression: the loathing of tyranny.

Loyalty/betrayal: standing with your group, family, nation. (Alternate name: Ingroup)

Authority/subversion: obeying tradition and legitimate authority. (Alternate name: Respect.)

Sanctity/degradation: abhorrence for disgusting things, foods, actions. (Alternate name: Purity.)

 

In the book, Haidt points out that whilst liberals hit the first three of these principles very strongly, they fail stress the latter three. Conservatives however stress all six of them to various degrees, although he does point out that they tend to minimise the care/harm principle if it would affect the other five. When viewed through this lens, it is easy to see why the Conservatives managed to win a majority in the 2015. Therefore, if Labour wants to stand any chance of winning in 2020, it would be best to appoint a leader that can hit all six of the moral foundations and ensure that the Labour Party does its best to appeal to all six. (You could argue that to some extent, they are already trying appealing to the last one, with a "secular sanctity" surrounding the NHS, viewing attempt to privitize or change it as a moral degradation).

 

But as I say, be sure to read the book, as there's some cracking insights in it, the most interesting being that conservatives find it easier to understand the viewpoints of liberals than the other way around.

 

I might be going off on a tangent here, and this might not at first seem relevant to the topic, but please hear me out, as it might be of interest.

 

Recently I've been reading the book "The Righteous Mind - Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion" by moral psycologist Jonathan Haidt, a book that I very much recommend that anyone interested in politics should read. It explains the reasons why people are attracted to certain political ideas and not others, and why liberals and conservatives think differently. Basically, he outlines his theory of Moral Foundations, of which he identifies six, which are -

 

Care/harm: cherishing and protecting others.

Fairness/cheating: rendering justice according to shared rules. (Alternate name: Proportionality)

Liberty/oppression: the loathing of tyranny.

Loyalty/betrayal: standing with your group, family, nation. (Alternate name: Ingroup)

Authority/subversion: obeying tradition and legitimate authority. (Alternate name: Respect.)

Sanctity/degradation: abhorrence for disgusting things, foods, actions. (Alternate name: Purity.)

This must be an American book. A British author would have known that the correct word is "Alternative" :P

This must be an American book. A British author would have known that the correct word is "Alternative" :P

It is indeed. Although the book does look at it largely from the perspective of American politics (i.e Democrat/Republican), he does briefly mention the UK, particularly how the Conservatives made use of the Fairness/Cheating and Loyalty/Betrayal foundations in their 2010 campaign.

It is indeed. Although the book does look at it largely from the perspective of American politics (i.e Democrat/Republican), he does briefly mention the UK, particularly how the Conservatives made use of the Fairness/Cheating and Loyalty/Betrayal foundations in their 2010 campaign.

Well, the Tories do know a lot about cheating and betrayal.

I think it'll be between Cooper and Burnham now that Dan's dropped out. A man to watch though in say 10 years' time.

I like Kendalls persona but not her right of centre views but I'm not sure how she'll stand up to Cameron at PMQS?

Honestly, the left is defined rather narrowly if the basic idea of appealing to moderate middle-class voters counts as centre-right...

But one of the problems is that people are conflating "middle-class" and "the South", when it's nowhere near as simple as that. Loads of the seats in the Midlands and the South where Labour underperformed are pretty poor.

It's clearly a complex picture!

No one in labour mention Caroline Flint been around an age and always is a good debater on QT?

Love a bit of Caz but I think she'd be more likely to go for Deputy.

But one of the problems is that people are conflating "middle-class" and "the South", when it's nowhere near as simple as that. Loads of the seats in the Midlands and the South where Labour underperformed are pretty poor.

I don't think we can take from anything so far that Liz Kendall would conflate the two. Not least as she represents a Midlands seat.

Love a bit of Caz but I think she'd be more likely to go for Deputy.

 

So do I nice looking girl! What would her ideology be?

 

Also hope Chris Leslie isn't shadow Chancellor!

I don't think we can take from anything so far that Liz Kendall would conflate the two. Not least as she represents a Midlands seat.

 

Maybe not her necessarily, but loads of Labour people have been saying both that Labour were supposedly too left-wing, and then in the same breath talked about how badly Labour did in the South (with the implication that the two are linked). I still can't understand the logic that people in somewhere like Hastings would've voted for Labour if they'd pledged more cuts and been nicer to big business-men.

I like Kendalls persona but not her right of centre views but I'm not sure how she'll stand up to Cameron at PMQS?

How important is PMQs?

 

If it is important (which i doubt), it could work in favour of a woman leader. Cameron has had problems with women in the past (Calm down dear). A weekly session with a woman leader of the opposition could prove tricky for him. Of course, he has said he will not be standing for a third term, so much depends on whether any negativity towards Cameron transfers to his successor.

Indeed but I meant the overall cut and thrust of politics with pmqs as the example!

 

Watching Newsnight here and the only things the journalists could hear listening outside the PLP meeting in the Commons tonight was Harriet Harman saying 'Don't listen to Peter Mandelson' haha

How important is PMQs?

 

If it is important (which i doubt), it could work in favour of a woman leader. Cameron has had problems with women in the past (Calm down dear). A weekly session with a woman leader of the opposition could prove tricky for him. Of course, he has said he will not be standing for a third term, so much depends on whether any negativity towards Cameron transfers to his successor.

 

you may have well have said "Boris Johnson" for "successor" and oh how we could all laugh as he tries to flirt and tease with a female opposition leader....