John Baron Basildon and Billericay Con absent

Richard Benyon Newbury Con absent

Chris Davies Brecon and Radnorshire Con absent

James Duddridge Rochford and Southend East Con absent

Cheryl Gillan Chesham and Amersham Con absent

John Glen Salisbury Con absent

Chris Grayling Epsom and Ewell Con absent

Damian Green Ashford Con absent

Oliver Heald North East Hertfordshire Con absent

James Heappey Wells Con absent

Kevin Hollinrake Thirsk and Malton Con absent

Andrea Jenkyns Morley and Outwood Con absent

Eleanor Laing Epping Forest Con absent

Jack Lopresti Filton and Bradley Stoke Con absent

Alan Mak Havant Con absent

Grant Shapps Welwyn Hatfield Con absent

Gary Streeter South West Devon Con absent

Mel Stride Central Devon Con absent

Craig Tracey North Warwickshire Con absent

Andrew Tyrie Chichester Con absent

Craig Whittaker Calder Valley Con absent

 

Only three out of those can even come close to being described as being in marginals - Andrea Jenkyns, Craig Whittaker and Craig Tracey. And the last of those was in America, which gives an idea of why the pairing system exists. Taking advantage of it just means it gets scrapped and the vote gets re-run when everyone's available.

 

It's also worth noting that none of those MPs have a reputation as welfare doves. If you were looking for signs of secret discontent and worry amongst the Tory benches, you'd need it to be the MPs who *do* have a history of rebelling on cuts and pride themselves on blue-collar conservatism who were abstaining - the likes of Andrew Percy, Tracey Crouch, Jason McCartney.

Seriously, I will just start reposting this every time. There's a Tory majority government. There were no Tory MPs voting against the bill. That this bill is happening is because there is a Tory majority. There are far more productive things to be arguing about than whether or not Labour MPs can block a bill which all the evidence shows has universal support amongst the MPs in the majority. No Tory MP spoke against the bill. It is a fairly common occurrence for MPs to not be present for a bill, without getting into conspiracy theories on why they weren't there.

And the Lib Dems have got some nerve, given they're a part of the pairing system too and know full well how it works. Back to the pious hypocrites of pre-2010 then.

I agree that the Lib Dems are not making their point in the best way possible. They just seem to be going for a simple message and hoping it works. It would be better to point out that they vetoed these cuts when in government (and spelling out why), and are continuing to oppose them now that they are back in opposition.

Thanks for the three explanations!

 

So 'the public' trust the Conservatives more than Labour when it comes to the economy, so the right side of the party believe that agreeing with the fabled Conservatives will build up this trust? I'm struggling to see how this will make Labour appeal to centre-right voters over the Conservatives when by 2020 the Conservatives will be a 'tried-and-tested' option offering something that, it seems, won't be radically different. Is there not a way for the electorate (a good proportion of whom follow centre-right rhetoric that seems to have been quite dominant in the recent past) to regain confidence in Labour's ability to manage the economy while also actively opposing what the Conservatives do? Because this strategy alienates those on the left, and that I do know.

 

It's not so much 'agreeing with the Conservatives', or that it's centre-right voters who are being targeted. Voters just don't trust Labour with spending, welfare, or immigration - and at the same time, your average family isn't looking for something radically different. Hence why most of them just voted Conservative, albeit reluctantly - and even in Scotland they voted for a party which for all the centre-left rhetoric has mostly governed in a moderate way for the last eight years and doesn't have the ability to overspend even if it wanted to, so it has the luxury of being able lobby against austerity while calling for full fiscal autonomy - which would make the austerity worse without serious tax rises, which it's worth recalling the SNP are more than free to enact right this second if they want - at ease.

 

This gives an idea of just how much trouble Labour's in right now, with former Labour voters who probably wouldn't for the most part describe themselves as being all that ideological. You get the sense that they'd be more than happy to vote Labour *if* they trusted the party to not overspend for the sake of it, and I don't think that involves being the same as the Tories.

 

So the question then becomes, when the kinds of voters you need to win back* don't trust you on those three big pillars, how do you win them back? Activists on the left of the party claim the best way is to just 'change the narrative' and argue the case for traditional Labour positions, but I've got two issues with that - it doesn't really recognise that it's really, really, really bloody difficult to just 'change the narrative' from opposition, and most of the time 'changing the narrative' and arguing that case sounds pretty much identical to saying all the things that those voters who we need are saying they *don't* like about Labour, despite the fact we're not really saying those things as it is.

 

My personal position is that the best way of going about winning these people back is to talk more about fairness with the spending you've got - I think at this stage when the argument over cuts has been so resoundingly lost (and I don't think it's something you can change minds on from opposition), the best you can do is switch to an argument over what your priorities for spending are. So for example, the Tories are choosing to spend ever more cash on tax relief and tax cuts for people who don't need them, rather than helping and investing in people who do. Obviously pretty hugely controversial even within Labour, but I think it's the closest we'd get to a starting point that could bridge the huge gap between what activists and members want and what the average voter would want.

 

*there's an alternate argument that we *just* need to win back left-wing voters and non-voters, but I think it's pretty facile - Labour would still be a solid second on seats and voters even had every SNP/Green voter that switched away since 2010 stayed Labour, and given non-voters tend to as a rule be fairly Ukippy in their views or totally uninterested and uninformed on politics I'm not persuaded by the idea that all that's required to get them out is a radical left-wing prospectus that happens to conveniently overlap entirely with the views of the person proposing it (I mean I'm subject to confirmation bias as much as anyone, but even I'm not going to kid myself that my approach will win because all of those non-voters out there actually secretly agree with me). Even the Fabian Society acknowledge that 4/5ths of the voters we need will have to come from the Tories. Which isn't as bad as it sounds, because plenty of the undecideds who went Tory aren't natural Tories - plenty held their nose and voted Tory as the least worst alternative to a perceived Labour-SNP instability crisis.

 

I doubt I'll be voting for Labour in the near future because they're watching a dismantling of the welfare state with too much passivity for my liking and that doesn't bode well for bold steps to be made towards a fairer society if they ever were to regain a majority. It's so relieving that today's Labour still credit themselves for the welfare state but it feels a bit empty when they're not using their time in opposition to, yanno, oppose reforms related to it. Even under FPTP, I'd much rather my vote goes to a smaller party at this point.

 

If yesterday is a sign of the direction Labour are to take, I'm struggling to see what a 2020 Labour voter will look like. I don't see why the swathes of people who will be (directly) affected by the current government's reforms or otherwise oppose them would vote for Labour over parties that take a harder opposition against them, other than Labour being a well-established party who in many constituencies aren't a 'wasted' vote.

This gives a bit more idea on why yesterday happened exactly. The crap thing about losing and being against a supreme political strategist is that you have to deal with stuff like this and there's no easy way out. What pleases self-identified liberal voters on social media is near-toxic to the voters Labour needs to win back; vice versa. Abstention was the least-worst option in Harriet's eyes and even *that's* still pretty bad.

I'm not sure how much of this is just bare-faced spin, but this is a fairly...interesting take on last night by one of the Labour MPs, if nothing else. Can someone like Suedehead confirm if this interpretation is valid?

 

GWYNNE BLOG: Debunking the myths on Commons procedure and the Welfare Bill

BY ANDREWGWYNNE JULY 21, 2015

 

Firstly, let’s debunk a media myth: last night, the Parliamentary Labour Party, as a bloc, in its entirety, united, voted AGAINST the Welfare Reform and Work Bill.

 

Certainly, how we got to that point probably would not have been my way of doing it, if I am being totally honest, but the facts are facts: We voted against the Bill.

 

Labour tabled a ‘Reasoned Amendment’ to the Bill. These are Parliamentary devices which allow you to set out (the clue is in the name) the reasons why you are opposing the entire Bill, even when there are things in it that you support.

 

It was necessary because the Tories have, perhaps craftily, lumped a load of stuff we don’t like, with a load of stuff they’d love us to vote against – that we most certainly ARE NOT opposed to.

 

Firstly, what is in the Bill that we do like?

 

Well there’s a commitment to three million apprenticeships, including more at a higher and advanced-level (I’m in favour of that. Indeed I had a Private Members’ Bill in the last Parliament to do just that!); then there are measures to cut council and social housing rents (one in four people living in my Denton and Reddish constituency live in social housing and should see their rents fall because of measures in this Bill. I’m not against that); and then there’s extra support for ‘troubled’ families – a scheme that has been proven to work and has saved the public purse millions (as well as transformed the lives of many people who’ve been engaged in this work).

 

But then there are the measures like the abolition of child poverty targets and cuts to support for the sick and disabled who are not fit for work – this includes people who have cancer or Parkinson’s disease – which we most certainly DO OPPOSE. Indeed I spoke out on this issue in the debate yesterday.

 

And then there’s a few myths about what some people think is in the Bill that aren’t: tax credits.

 

Let’s be clear, we will vote against the tax credit cuts which will make 3 million low and middle income working families worse off. These measures are not in the Welfare Reform and Work Bill – they will be in Statutory Instruments in the autumn, and Labour will oppose them.

 

So last night all Labour MPs voted against the Welfare Reform and Work Bill on a Reasoned Amendment. Some colleagues also voted against the entirety of the Bill. I could not do that because this Bill is so finely balanced with things I do want to see happen.

 

So what happens next? This is where we get to vote on all the things we don’t like in the Bill…

 

Labour has tabled detailed amendments on the substance of the Bill at Committee and Report Stage.

 

These include:

 

An amendment to prevent the Government abolishing the targets for reducing child poverty.

The Government are also trying to delete child poverty from the remit of the ‘Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission’ so that it becomes just the ‘Social Mobility Commission’. An amendment will prevent that taking place.

An amendment which will mean that the household benefit cap would not apply to persons who are responsible for a child under 2 years old, are a carer, or are in temporary accommodation because of domestic violence.

A new clause which will require the Secretary of State to report each year on the impact of the household benefit cap, particularly on child poverty.

An amendment which will require the level of the household benefit cap to be reviewed every year, rather than only once in a Parliament. The review would be based on the new clause above requiring the impact of the benefit cap on child poverty to be assessed each year.

An amendment which will require the Social Security Advisory Committee to review the Discretionary Housing Payments fund each year to ensure that sufficient resources are available. Discretionary Housing Payments are used to support those who are unfairly affected by the benefit cap.

An amendment which will set the target of full employment as 80 per cent of the working age population – in line with the Labour Government’s definition and recent research which shows that this would be an ambitious target. The Bill includes a process for reviewing progress towards ‘full employment’, but does not define what is meant by that.

An amendment to require the UK Commission on Employment and Skills to assess whether the Government’s target for apprenticeships is being met, so that the Government can be held to account. There is significant concern among businesses and others that the quality of apprenticeships is being watered down in order to increase the numbers.

An amendment which will require the resources which are being dedicated to helping troubled families to be clearly set out.

An amendment which will ensure that interventions to support troubled families are focused on helping people into work.

An amendment to prevent the Bill restricting Universal Credit for three or subsequent children even when the third child is born before 5 April 2017.

A new clause preventing the restrictions to tax credits applying to three or more children where a third child is born as a result of a multiple birth, where a third of subsequent child is fostered or adopted, where a third child or subsequent child is disabled, or where a family with three or more children moves onto tax credits or universal credit in exceptional circumstances – including but not restricted to the death of one member of the family, the departure of one parent or loss of income through unemployment – which would be set out by the Social Security Advisory Committee. It also sets up an appeals process for all cases covered by this clause.

An amendment preventing cuts in the Employment and Support Allowance (ESA) for the WRAG group of around £30 a week. People who are in the WRAG group have been through a rigorous test which has deemed them not fit for work, for example because they have Parkinson’s or are being treated for cancer.

An amendment requiring the Government to produce a plan to offset the impact of lower social rents on housing associations. Labour supports the reduction in social housing rents, which will help low-income families and bring down the housing benefits bill. However, we must protect against impacts on the ability of housing associations to build new affordable homes and maintain their existing properties.

An amendment which subjects the four-year benefit freeze to an annual review subject to changes in inflation.

We will force individual votes on our amendments, so it’s clear what we do and don’t support, without the Tory Party or their media friends trying to paint us as being one thing or another.

 

And if none of our amendments succeed? Then we still have an opportunity to vote against the Bill at Third Reading

So the question then becomes, when the kinds of voters you need to win back* don't trust you on those three big pillars, how do you win them back? Activists on the left of the party claim the best way is to just 'change the narrative' and argue the case for traditional Labour positions, but I've got two issues with that - it doesn't really recognise that it's really, really, really bloody difficult to just 'change the narrative' from opposition, and most of the time 'changing the narrative' and arguing that case sounds pretty much identical to saying all the things that those voters who we need are saying they *don't* like about Labour, despite the fact we're not really saying those things as it is.

 

I'm sorry but this is just flatly untrue. The Tories changed the narrative on how important the deficit was from opposition. UKIP changed the narrative on immigration from opposition. The SNP changed the narrative on independence from opposition. Blair changed the narrative on how non-negotiable investment in public services was from opposition. I've got no idea how you can claim it's impossible for Labour to try it, when Miliband didn't even properly attempt to do it, and in any case didn't have the star quality to get any message to resonate.

 

The bottom line is, for as long as people think the big questions are how to cut spending, how to tackle "scroungers", and how maximising big businesses' profits is the only thing that matters in the economy, people will always think the Tories have the answers no matter how much Labour cravenly triangulates.

 

(And LOL at that focus group carried out by former Blair advisers being cited. I'll go find the polling showing people thought Labour would cut spending too much, were too soft on businesses and wouldn't tax the rich enough, again.)

Edited July 21, 20159 yr by Danny

I'm sorry but this is just flatly untrue. The Tories changed the narrative on how important the deficit was from opposition. UKIP changed the narrative on immigration from opposition. The SNP changed the narrative on independence from opposition. Blair changed the narrative on how non-negotiable investment in public services was from opposition. I've got no idea how you can claim it's impossible for Labour to try it, when Miliband didn't even properly attempt to do it, and in any case didn't have the star quality to get any message to resonate.

 

The bottom line is, for as long as people think the big questions are how to cut spending, how to tackle "scroungers", and how maximising big businesses' profits is the only thing that matters in the economy, people will always think the Tories have the answers no matter how much Labour cravenly triangulates.

 

(And LOL at that focus group carried out by former Blair advisers being cited. I'll go find the polling showing people thought Labour would cut spending too much, were too soft on businesses and wouldn't tax the rich enough, again.)

Except they didn't 'change the narrative': the views on immigration were already pre-existing and widespread, UKIP just took advantage of them to gain prominence - they didn't 'change the narrative' on immigration, which was roughly the same before the rise of UKIP as it was after, only it was more prominent as a topic after (and for that matter didn't really do them much good when it came down to it in the election). The SNP weren't in opposition - I don't know if you recall, but that referendum kind of only happened because they won a majority and established themselves as a generally trusted Scottish government. And the deficit wasn't the size it was beforehand when the Tories started going on about it, when it went from ~£30bn to over £100bn pretty much overnight and the media started baulking at it - making that comparison is like saying Labour 'changed the narrative on terrorism' in 2001 without recognising that a little thing called 9/11 happened.

 

And like I said - that's why you change the topic to how you prioritise the spending you do have, rather than arguing about whether or not you have a deficit of £90bn, which is a debate that has been pretty much settled. None of the examples you give are debates that had been settled at the time the parties took them up/rose to prominence. UKIP's rise happened *because* immigration was a topic that was so prominent and they decided to start talking about it rather than Europe. The SNP were losing the debate anyway but lost it by less precisely because they were able to show that they weren't *totally* quixotic by having a record in government. And the Tories were losing the debate on investment vs tax cuts (which is what the debate was until that point, not investment vs cuts) until the fiscal situation changed dramatically enough that they could talk about it and get agreement. Even *I'd* agree with you if we dramatically went into a surplus of £50bn tomorrow that talking about wholesale spending increases was a good idea.

I'm the same way (I think, the page was a bit dodgy when I actually paid) but I've been getting e-mails from all the candidates ever since trying to convince me so I assume that's working alright. But unlike you I'm completely unsure. I'd love Corbyn if I thought there was any way he could be workable without destroying any chance Labour has of getting back in power (I can be a bit of an idealistic lefty at heart) while none of the other three are really exciting me yet.

 

That's me, pretty much - Corbyn says much I agree with (and the party could do with quietly adopting some of the more social-leaning) but he'd be eaten alive by a pack of wolves. To fight off the wolves, and these ones have rabies, you need someone with a few weapons: stature and assertiveness to avoid going the Mr Bean route, someone not afraid to say what they think and fight their corner firmly and concisely in plain English, and doing it without coming over as a whinger or holier-than-thou.

 

None of them are perfect for the job, but Burnham seems to me ticking more of the boxes...

I'm not sure how much of this is just bare-faced spin, but this is a fairly...interesting take on last night by one of the Labour MPs, if nothing else. Can someone like Suedehead confirm if this interpretation is valid?

 

convinced me! Labour continue to have a problem with presentation if that's the case, but then the Tories know that and can predict all the Murdoch and Mail headlines and these are the ones that tend to stick in the tabloid readers short memories. Cameron and Osbourne's motives should not be underestimated just cos they look like thicky posh boys. Does Labour actually PAY anyone to quickly write retorts and present facts (spin-merchants please do not apply for job) - Simple facts should be enough and there are plenty in that article to pick from!

 

 

Except they didn't 'change the narrative': the views on immigration were already pre-existing and widespread, UKIP just took advantage of them to gain prominence - they didn't 'change the narrative' on immigration, which was roughly the same before the rise of UKIP as it was after, only it was more prominent as a topic after (and for that matter didn't really do them much good when it came down to it in the election).

 

There was a "dormant" anger about immigration, before it exploded to the top of the agenda when UKIP came along. Just as there's a dormant anger about the rich getting away with blue murder while everyone else pays, yet Labour have been too timid to make that argument. And who cares how well UKIP did in the election? They still got what they wanted as a result of changing the narrative: tougher immigration controls and an EU referendum.

 

Your whole argument seems to be based on the defeatist logic of "the public think this way, therefore it's inevitable that the public will always think this way so what's the point in even trying to make an argument". Labour would never have even got off the ground if previous generations thought like that, and they will allow the Tories to shift the terms of debate ever more rightwards until they man/woman-up and start actually fighting for things they believe in.

Edited July 21, 20159 yr by Danny

Stephen Tall ‏@stephentall 22m22 minutes ago

Tell you one thing. Tony Blair wouldn't have passed up the opportunity to defeat the Tories on welfare cuts if he were still Labour leader.

Cameron and Osborne know that it is easy to spout simple slogans without worrying too much about the truth. They keep banging on about how a majority of people are in favour of benefit cuts, knowing full well that most people have a very poor grasp of the facts. For example, how many people know that unemployment benefit is just 3% of the total benefits bill? The figure presumably also includes some people who think that the benefits bill should be reduced by getting more companies to pay a decent wage.

 

The problem facing all opposition parties is that peoples' eyes glaze over once you start trying to explain why simple slogans are grossly misleading.

 

Equally, most people know little about parliamentary procedure. How many people have even heard of a Reasoned Amendment, as mentioned in Andrew Glynne's piece?

Corbyn ahead in YouGov poll of Labour members:

 

First preferences

43% Corbyn

26% Burnham

20% Cooper

11% Kendall

 

 

Run-off

53% Corbyn

47% Burnham

Edited July 21, 20159 yr by Danny

They need a woman. Problem is I don't think any of the two are to my liking from what I know.

Seeing these comments in this thread about how traditional Labour voters are deciding to turn away from Labour because of their failure to oppose a bill (which was impossible to stop going through anyway) is exactly what Osborne and co. had in mind when preparing this bill sadly, and it breaks my heart to see it happening. Divide and conquer.

 

Classic.

Times columnist hits the nail on the head: even if Corbyn wouldn't win an election for Labour, he would atleast be an effectual opposition, rather than be so spineless as to actively enable welfare cuts:

 

A revival of the hard left — with a Corbyn victory or, much more likely, good showing — would make it easier for the Tories to hold power but harder to govern. As happened when Labour tacked left in the 1980s, local government became more militant and less co-operative, the unions became more aggressive, political relations became more bitter. Mrs Thatcher often won the battles — against Arthur Scargill, say — but the poison remains, still in the system years later.

 

The rise of the hard left encourages law breakers and demonstrators and terrorist groups seeking concessions from the government. It turns every dispute into a political rebellion against the system. In other words Tories registering to support Jeremy Corbyn are registering to make their own job harder even if they are also voting to retain power. The job of returning to fiscal balance, best done in an atmosphere of national consent, would instead became a war about attrition. In that sense, the Corbyn campaign is not as eccentric as it seems. He would make austerity harder.

 

In 1972, Richard Nixon crushed George McGovern. But the hatred of the angry liberal-left Democratic party that he had done his bit to create helped to do for Nixon in the end. He lived by the political sword and died by it.

 

Register as a Labour supporter to support a hard left candidate and you get a hard left outcome. Hilarious.

 

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/colu...icle4504545.ece

The bit that he thought too obvious to state in the piece being that Thatcher won, obviously. The 80s aren't exactly a model of how feel-good leftism can help people's lives.

 

That said this is too far gone. I'm voting for Corbyn as a second preference. If the members are going to think turning Labour into a book club that gets very very angry at the government is a good idea, they're going to learn exactly what that entails.

The bit that he thought too obvious to state in the piece being that Thatcher won, obviously. The 80s aren't exactly a model of how feel-good leftism can help people's lives.

 

That said this is too far gone. I'm voting for Corbyn as a second preference. If the members are going to think turning Labour into a book club that gets very very angry at the government is a good idea, they're going to learn exactly what that entails.

 

Atleast in the 1980s they slowed down Thatcher's agenda, whereas now they're letting the Tories go full speed ahead with no resistance and letting them define ever more right-wing ideas as the norm. It's not like the appeasement strategy works electorally anyway, as we saw in May.

Edited July 22, 20159 yr by Danny

The brutal, brutal sting of that poll also - only 27% of members polled put 'the ability to achieve electoral success' in their TOP FOUR priorities they wanted from a Labour leader. We have literally become a party of members that are open about preferring being in Opposition to being in Government. Self-indulgence at its worst.

The brutal, brutal sting of that poll also - only 27% of members polled put 'the ability to achieve electoral success' in their TOP FOUR priorities they wanted from a Labour leader. We have literally become a party of members that are open about preferring being in Opposition to being in Government. Self-indulgence at its worst.

 

I don't get this argument. It's not a case of "preferring": they're in opposition for the next 5 years irrespective of what they prefer. So their main job for the next 5 years is to try to stop the Tories' policies as best they can, with the ample opportunities to do that that such a slender government majority provides - rather than feebly giving in all the time like the last 5 years and allowing the Tories to move the terms of debate rightwards, or on Monday by gifting them a majority for cuts that otherwise wasn't there.

Edited July 21, 20159 yr by Danny

Atleast in the 1980s they slowed down Thatcher's agenda, whereas now they're letting the Tories go full speed ahead with no resistance and letting them define ever more right-wing ideas as the norm. It's not like the appeasement strategy works electorally anyway, as we saw in May.

 

What I don't think your grasping is the main thing Labour people want is the cuts stopped, something Labour indicated on Monday they weren't planning to try to do over the next few years; whether people who happen to wear red rosettes get government limousines is incidental to the main political goals.

And as a result of electing Corbyn they're going to get another ten years minimum of the Tories running rampant, except they'll be more than happy to cut even further - 40% cuts was the plan Osborne's getting each department to prepare. Except they won't be doing what a Labour government would do - balancing a budget, increasing taxes, spending more once the budget actually is levelled. They'll be cutting to surplus and spending that surplus on tax cuts. And more surplus. And more tax cuts.

 

It's the equivalent of moving the queen out four moves into a game of chess, then strongest piece after strongest piece getting taken, all because the members can't sate their desire to shoot for the moon and feel instantly gratified at every step. And what happens in that situation? The opponent wins. Rather than get a situation that isn't anywhere near as bad in seven years, they'd rather a scorched earth in twelve or seventeen - but at least they felt good about themselves along the way.