:rofl:

 

Reminded me of Dennis Skinners question at PMQs last week there!

Not read The Daily Mash before, which is odd, as it's so "me"...

 

funny! :lol:

Rachel Reeves (apparently Burnham's choice for shadow chancellor) doing her best to torpedo Andy's chances by spouting this Tory nonsense about surpluses and welfare caps:

 

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/...nister-must-act

After this morning, I'm coming to the conclusion it couldn't matter less.

After this morning, I'm coming to the conclusion it couldn't matter less.

 

Indeed - that prat of a shadow chancellor whose name escapes me is already touring the studios saying how much he agrees with everything in the budget.

 

What exactly do Labour plan to spend the next 5 years talking about if they're too scared to depart from the Tory parameters on all economic/spending issues? The EU? :rofl: I'm sure that'll get the swing voters flocking back to them. They haven't learnt a thing from the last parliament.

Edited July 8, 201510 yr by Danny

Labour's meekness has given Osborne the cover to savage the working poor

 

One of the cruelest ironies of the general election is that Ed Miliband's tepid political offering has been interpreted as a parable about the dangers of being too left wing.

 

Case in point: the living wage. It took the Labour leader years to say whether he even supported it and then, when he did, his big offering was to set it at £8 an hour by 2020.

 

That failure of nerve has now allowed George Osborne to leap-frog the Labour offer and present himself as a social justice chancellor while he savages the working poor.

 

Osborne used his so-called emergency Budget today to offer a mandatory living wage of £9 an hour by 2020. There are plenty of problems with the offer, given he is cutting benefits for those same low-income workers elsewhere. It's basically a minimum wage with a striking new name. The mechanics of working impoverishment stay the same, but the chancellor can shift the politics to his advantage. The left's criticism of his plan will fall on deaf ears, because it is superior to Labour's offer.

 

This is what a timid Labour party does. It does nothing to limit the attacks from the press. They spent the election calling Miliband a crazed Marxist anyway, even though he bent over backwards not to do anything remotely radical. But it succeeds in giving the Conservatives maximum room to manoeuvre.

 

If Labour had any sense it would learn from what has happened today. But it does not and they will not. The party will continue to shift right, even when presented with the evident political danger of doing so.

 

Behind Osborne's living wage decision was a savage attack on the working poor. Maintenance grants would be replaced by ramped-up loans for poorer students. Those aspiring to a better life and struggling against a system which anyway advantages those with private means will have more and more debt heaved upon them, lasting probably throughout their working life.

 

Tax credits and universal credit will be limited to two children – a move which is almost guaranteed to drive children into poverty. We won't technically be able to call it that, of course, because the government took the precaution of changing the definition of child poverty before making the announcement.

 

The benefits cap will be reduced to £20,000. The income threshold in tax credits will be reduced from £6,420 to an eye-watering £3,850. Universal credit work allowances will be taken away from able-bodied people without children altogether. The taper rate at which tax credit is awarded will be raised to 48% and the income rise which is disregarded cut from £5,000 to £2,500.

 

This is a punishment regime imposed on the very people Osborne claimed he wanted to help – those who don't sit at home 'with the curtains drawn', those who get up and go to work despite meagre wages, those who encourage their children to go to university so they can have a better life. They are the target of Osborne's red pen.

 

Meanwhile, the middle and upper class were showered with rewards. The wealthy will be able to pass on up to £1 million to their children free of inheritance tax. The upper rate income tax threshold will be raised to £43,000. Corporation tax will be cut once again, to 19% in 2017 and 18% in 2020.

 

That's the reality of Osborne's Budget – the working poor savaged, the wealthy rewarded. But a final flourish on the living wage protects him. Afterwards Harriet Harman seemed all at sea. The SNP and Labour were in disarray.

 

The Tories frightened Labour into a pitifully meagre election offer and today they mercilessly used it against them.

 

http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2015/07/08...the-working-poo

Edited July 8, 201510 yr by Danny

What exactly do Labour plan to spend the next 5 years talking about if they're too scared to depart from the Tory parameters on all economic/spending issues? The EU? :rofl: I'm sure that'll get the swing voters flocking back to them. They haven't learnt a thing from the last parliament.

You won't really find anyone talking about the EU other than outside of the context of the EU referendum. Which will be because, uh, it's occurring and would have pretty big consequences if we left - it's not really something the party can just say nothing about. It wouldn't really be central to a pitch on 'here's why you should vote Labour'.

 

There are plenty of issues you can focus spending on. I'm sure you agree there are areas that are getting too much spending right now and not others within the amount we're spending. Saying we'd have public services (take your pick - the candidates have taken theirs. Andy the NHS, Yvette child poverty, Liz early years education) as a priority for spending rather than tax cuts isn't really 'YOU'RE ALL THE SAME'

You won't really find anyone talking about the EU other than outside of the context of the EU referendum. Which will be because, uh, it's occurring and would have pretty big consequences if we left - it's not really something the party can just say nothing about. It wouldn't really be central to a pitch on 'here's why you should vote Labour'.

 

There are plenty of issues you can focus spending on. I'm sure you agree there are areas that are getting too much spending right now and not others within the amount we're spending. Saying we'd have public services (take your pick - the candidates have taken theirs. Andy the NHS, Yvette child poverty, Liz early years education) as a priority for spending rather than tax cuts isn't really 'YOU'RE ALL THE SAME'

 

But why would the same strategy from the last parliament get a different result this time? They're going to allow the Tories to set the terms of debate, yet again. There's no way out for them until they start challenging the central arguments that the deficit is the big overriding issue, and that the super-rich and big businesses aren't pulling their weight.

Edited July 8, 201510 yr by Danny

But why would the same strategy from the last parliament get a different result this time? They're going to allow the Tories to set the terms of debate, yet again. There's no way out for them until they start challenging the central arguments that the deficit is the big overriding issue, and that the super-rich and big businesses aren't pulling their weight.

I disagree totally that there's 'no way out' and only a De Blasio campaign can win. Mainly as that was the main vibe and message Ed's campaign gave off, but badly and incoherently - and the general sense was that he was crap and it would be ineffectual even if he did get in and try it (I don't buy that your average voter was convinced Ed Miliband would stick to the plans he laid out, rather than just saying them as lip service).

 

I don't imagine Liz Kendall (reference before we get the inevitable snark - she's slamming Osborne's £9 living wage claims and saying it's a mockery if he's withdrawing tax credits too) would be in a position where she couldn't win if she did get elected as Leader - people want social justice, they just would rather it didn't go hand in hand with a government blowing the bank. It's just that her winning doesn't look especially likely at the moment.

I disagree totally that there's 'no way out' and only a De Blasio campaign can win. Mainly as that was the main vibe and message Ed's campaign gave off, but badly and incoherently - and the general sense was that he was crap and it would be ineffectual even if he did get in and try it (I don't buy that your average voter was convinced Ed Miliband would stick to the plans he laid out, rather than just saying them as lip service).

 

I don't imagine Liz Kendall (reference before we get the inevitable snark - she's slamming Osborne's £9 living wage claims and saying it's a mockery if he's withdrawing tax credits too) would be in a position where she couldn't win if she did get elected as Leader - people want social justice, they just would rather it didn't go hand in hand with a government blowing the bank. It's just that her winning doesn't look especially likely at the moment.

Which partly proves Danny's point. The Tories and Lib Dems managed to con people into thinking that it was Labour's social justice policies that caused the deficit. Labour are now in danger of letting the Tories set the agenda again. With the government having such a small majority, Labour should be looking to see what parts of the budget they might be able to defeat. Instead, they seem to be supporting far too much of it.

I disagree totally that there's 'no way out' and only a De Blasio campaign can win. Mainly as that was the main vibe and message Ed's campaign gave off, but badly and incoherently - and the general sense was that he was crap and it would be ineffectual even if he did get in and try it (I don't buy that your average voter was convinced Ed Miliband would stick to the plans he laid out, rather than just saying them as lip service).

 

I don't imagine Liz Kendall (reference before we get the inevitable snark - she's slamming Osborne's £9 living wage claims and saying it's a mockery if he's withdrawing tax credits too) would be in a position where she couldn't win if she did get elected as Leader - people want social justice, they just would rather it didn't go hand in hand with a government blowing the bank. It's just that her winning doesn't look especially likely at the moment.

 

Sorry, but this was always the argument you used for why Miliband was not challenging the Tories on the big issues. If it didn't work then, why would it work now? The approach of trying to sneak back into government by stealth, without taking the risk of standing up and making a left-wing case even in the teeth of whining from the media, has surely been tested to destruction now.

 

Public opinion doesn't exist in a vacuum, it's influenced by the arguments that politicians make. 5 years ago, the Tories would never have dared cutting pay for the low-paid - that they have is just testament to how timid Labour have been and how much they've allowed the Tories to move the debate so far to the right. Labour continuing to not challenge them will give them licence to move even further to the right, AND will mean they don't win - if people think the big issues of the day are right-wing ones (cutting the deficit, making the economy "competitive"), then they will inevitably turn to the market leaders Tories for the answers, regardless of how much Labour parrots what the focus groups say.

Sorry, but this was always the argument you used for why Miliband was not challenging the Tories on the big issues. If it didn't work then, why would it work now? The approach of trying to sneak back into government by stealth, without taking the risk of standing up and making a left-wing case even in the teeth of whining from the media, has surely been tested to destruction now.

Because he was crap and ineffectual as a leader? You're acting like Miliband proves we must go left when the argument could be just as accurately made (if not more likely made, given it's closer to what actually won than Ed was to the prospectus proposed) that a more New Labour prospectus - tested to destruction, uh, three times and successful each time - would be a likelier route to success.

 

Public opinion doesn't exist in a vacuum, it's influenced by the arguments that politicians make. 5 years ago, the Tories would never have dared cutting pay for the low-paid - that they have is just testament to how timid Labour have been and how much they've allowed the Tories to move the debate so far to the right. Labour continuing to not challenge them will give them licence to move even further to the right, AND will mean they don't win - if people think the big issues of the day are right-wing ones (cutting the deficit, making the economy "competitive"), then they will inevitably turn to the market leaders Tories for the answers, regardless of how much Labour parrots what the focus groups say.

The economy is literally always an issue. Labour aren't going to ever win if they aren't trusted with it, no matter how much you persuade them you're on the right on everything else - which is exactly what Labour tried to do at the last election by making the NHS and the cost of living such a big issue in the hope it would be the question voters were asking. Didn't really work. If you don't have a clear message on each issue because 'oh the opposition are the leaders on that one', you're ceding it to the opposition and letting them run havoc with it amongst swing voters.

Because he was crap and ineffectual as a leader? You're acting like Miliband proves we must go left when the argument could be just as accurately made (if not more likely made, given it's closer to what actually won than Ed was to the prospectus proposed) that a more New Labour prospectus - tested to destruction, uh, three times and successful each time - would be a likelier route to success.

 

So you think, policies/'positioning' aside, Kendall would be a better leader than Ed?

 

In any case I'm not talking about going to the left - as I said the other day, I'm talking about just having the guts to stand up and challenge the Conservatives on the key arguments and the central premises (that the deficit is the big issue, that the poor need to be 'incentivised', that it's 'anti-aspiration' to make the rich pay more, that it's Communist to say that businesses have a responsibility to society rather than just maximising their profits) and try to change people's minds, rather than hide in a corner and hope public opinion changes on its own, or that they can just sneak into government and then quietly implement the right policies there.

Edited July 8, 201510 yr by Danny

Because he was crap and ineffectual as a leader? You're acting like Miliband proves we must go left when the argument could be just as accurately made (if not more likely made, given it's closer to what actually won than Ed was to the prospectus proposed) that a more New Labour prospectus - tested to destruction, uh, three times and successful each time - would be a likelier route to success.

If Miliband proves anything it's that the package was wrong. I don't totally buy the argument that we're letting the Tories set the agenda as much as we did after 2010. What hurt us was that we then spent the next two years going through a policy review which was then almost entirely ignored because the parliament is five years long. I don't think the new leader will make the same mistake. It's about picking the right fights over the next few years, always having a position (even if it's temporary, because fuck it) and using those experiences to craft a decent manifesto in five years.

 

Also, I find it endlessly frustrating that all the likely candidates for Shadow Chancellor are so bad. I could just about deal with Chris Leslie or Chuka but please god no to Rachel Reeves. If Andy wins I want him to offer it to Yvette.

If Miliband proves anything it's that the package was wrong. I don't totally buy the argument that we're letting the Tories set the agenda as much as we did after 2010. What hurt us was that we then spent the next two years going through a policy review which was then almost entirely ignored because the parliament is five years long. I don't think the new leader will make the same mistake. It's about picking the right fights over the next few years, always having a position (even if it's temporary, because fuck it) and using those experiences to craft a decent manifesto in five years.

 

Also, I find it endlessly frustrating that all the likely candidates for Shadow Chancellor are so bad. I could just about deal with Chris Leslie or Chuka but please god no to Rachel Reeves. If Andy wins I want him to offer it to Yvette.

 

Yeah, I don't think she's leader material but she'd be a perfect shadow chancellor, since the main job of that role is to be reassuringly dull and make it seem like you'd always keep your head in a crisis, like Brown in the 1990s (who could've been reading out the contents of 'Das Kapital' and still been trusted because of how his personality naturally came across).

So you think, policies/'positioning' aside, Kendall would be a better leader than Ed?

Yep. I think she'd come across more consistent, more clear, more tough, and far closer to sharing your average voter's values and concerns than Ed did.

Don't you think that Yvette Cooper as Shadow Chancellor would be portrayed as Ed Balls' representative on Earth?

I always took people's issues with Balls to be more personal than political.

 

GOD I MISS HIM

I always took people's issues with Balls to be more personal than political.

 

GOD I MISS HIM

 

Yup, the problem with him IMO is how shifty and flustered he'd always come across in interviews (tbf, that might have been because of his stammer).

Unfortunately I think his stammer was a big part of it. The fact that he got so easily flustered meant that he tried to make up for it by going "on the attack" in a weird sort of way.