Danny

That may be, but it doesn't change the fact that he wouldn't have got anywhere if he'd just spouted the nonsense that today's "Blairites" spout which the public just dismisses as meaningless politics-speak. Also, a while back I looked through the Independent archive for stuff about Labour from that period (because I'm just that cool), and there's actually a LOT of stories about Blair and especially Brown railing against the "undeserving rich" and saying that certain salaries were out of proportion (while stressing they supported businesses that did the right thing).

Talking about Blair in opposition. He would never have got people's attention in the first place if he'd just mouthed vacuous "centrist" platitudes and not put forward substance. Peter Kellner (one of the former "Blairite" heroes) also says he thinks Blair's 1997 manifesto was more left-wing in substance than Miliband's; he says the main issue was that Miliband allowed himself to LOOK more left-wing than he actually was (which I don't totally agree with either, but it makes a lot more sense than this laughable idea that the public are crying out for a Labour party which commits to huge spending cuts and sucks up to the super-rich and big businesses): http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/peter-kell..._b_7305402.html

Plus, I don't see how you could think any of the candidates WON'T stick to the platitudes. Anything concrete will cost money. If Liz Kendall et al are running round saying how they don't believe in government spending, how is it possible to say something concrete?

But Tony Blair was to the left of Miliband and the current leadership contenders on policy (however reasonable and non-tribal his tone was). He was able to sound distinctive because he was actually arguing for higher government spending and government assistance for people, for new workers' rights, and occasionally even criticising obscenely high levels of pay: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/blair-co...ed-1568040.html

But as we've seen from the past 5 years, platitudes are inevitable if Labour aren't going to go properly to the left. If they're not prepared to make a proper, distinctive argument (whether that's an argument for government spending, for more business responsibility, for the super-rich being brought to heel, etc.), they've got nothing left to say except the derivative soundbites like "hardworking families" or "unleashing people's potential" that turn off the public, swing voters most of all. Yet again it will result in the parties with the clearer and more distinctive messages (the Tories and the SNP) drowning out Labour yet again.

But she's just had a week of media interviews and press coverage. If she couldn't create an impression on people with those opportunities in the way that Chuka and Andy have done, doesn't that suggest she's not good enough for the job? This goes to the heart of the problem, to reach out to people who've drifted away from Labour, you need to have something interesting to say to even get their attention before you can think about getting their votes -- platitudes about "giving people control" are not going to get people's attention. Yet platitudes are inevitable if they're too scared to put forward any concrete (even - gasp! - left-wing) ideas.

YouGov yesterday asking people's opinions on Labour leaders had the supposed swing voters' choice Liz Kendall reach 2%. Chuka Umunna was top with 17% followed by Andy Burnham on 14%.

Ironically, one of the safest SNP seats (Banff & Buchan) is apparently the most Eurosceptic in Scotland. https://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/fp/news/p...stay-in-the-eu/

Brown was an idiot who constantly said stupid things to get a good day's headlines, and he didn't regulate the banks enough. No-one disagrees with either of those things. But what we're talking about is whether they overspent; comparing the deficit at the time to historic standards shows they just didn't, and Labour have no chance at all of winning anytime soon if they don't start making that argument.

If I was that certain, then I would never hire him again no matter what. It's going to be difficult for Labour to try to change perceptions of what happened in the late 2000s now that they've given the Tories such a huge headstart, but it's their ONLY chance of success, at any point in the next 15 years or so atleast. By making the argument that governments constantly run deficits and the financial markets don't care as long as they're under control.

That's not answering my question - if Labour aren't for providing public services and government help (which inevitably costs money), what exactly are they for?

No, I definitely wouldn't EVER hire an electrician who wrecked the wiring no matter how much they apologised (if he was that incompetent to do it before, he could do it again even without meaning to). The only way I'd hire him is if he proved he hadn't wrecked it in the first place.

You're right that it's a problem that Labour are mocked everytime they say they overspent, a consequence of not challenging the Tories' argument enough over the past 5 years about how running a deficit is evil. But that's no reason to get bogged down in the quicksand even more and make it even harder to ever get out. And again, this implication of Labour committing to not spending any money next time - what exactly is the point of Labour if they're not going to do anything different to the Tories? Please don't tell me they're going to return to the argument of "we can make things magically better for free while spending no money".

I don't understand this "conceding and move on" mantra. The Tories are not going to let you "move on" after an admission that you wrecked the economy :lol: (and no, the average member of the public isn't going to pay attention to the contorted nuances of "we spent too much but that didn't cause the crash"). Whoever is the Tory leader at the next election are going to at any opportunity say "even they admit they made a mess, so you sure as hell shouldn't trust them". If people think you royally screwed up, they're not going to trust you again. All the public are going to be hearing right now is "the Tories really must've been right all along if Labour are admitting it".

David might (MIGHT) have been seen as more "prime ministerial", but his platitudinous babbling would've gone down horribly with people, just as Liz Kendall's would.

Well, imo it's not true that they overspent at all; the deficit before the banking crash really was small by historic standards. But even leaving aside whether it's true in reality, it makes no sense for Labour to say it. It's like an electrician putting an ad in the paper bragging about all the faulty wirings they've done; you're not exactly going to be rushing to them are you. People aren't going to think "aw they're so modest to admit they screwed up!" like these clueless politicians think -- all the public will hear is an admission of failure and resolve never to go back to them.

John Mann @JohnMannMP · 15h 15 hours ago As I spend quality time away with my new grandson, I can't answer repeated questions over Labour: 'what on earth are they talking about?'

I have no idea, but it's an incredibly daft political strategy. If you think Labour have an economic credibility problem now, just imagine what it's going to be like next time when the Tories are armed with attack lines like "even Labour admit they overspent, there's the proof it wasn't just a Tory scare story, so why on earth would you trust them again?" Not to mention, the implication that the deficit was "too big" in 2007 -- it will almost certainly be bigger than that in 2020, so they're giving licence yet again for the main issue of the next election to be the deficit yet again. But apparently these people still haven't learnt that if your opponents want you to do something, it's the very last thing you should do.

What do you think's wrong with him?

Guy from the Mirror was on Sky earlier saying he suspected the real reason Chuka withdrew was because he was struggling to get enough nominations to get through to the next round. In fact, he claimed "most" MPs he'd spoken to were backing Burnham and that even Yvette Cooper might struggle to get through. ZmlCx-ylOSQ

This article makes much more sense than any of the puff pieces I've read about "aspiration": Labour’s emotional illiteracy: the party need to abandon the language of hellfire and damnation Anecdotally, it's definitely true that people get really turned off by all the talk about how Labour are the only ones who are morally pure and all the rest are evil baby-eaters. It's not even that it makes Labour look "left-wing", it just makes them look like a weird religious cult.

Actually, part of me hopes Creagh or Kendall gets it. The complete and utter carcrash they would be might finally get the Blairite virus out of the party's system once and for all. The worst thing would be Yvette Cooper since she would be another Miliband who would tread water and fudge things for 5 years: not good enough to come close to winning, but not quite obviously bad enough to bring about a moment of reckoning.

Didn't she say Labour spent too much? And seriously, find me one thing in that article or anything Liz Kendall has said that a Tory wouldn't happily say. Who in their right mind would ever disagree with "wanting to help people get on in life" or "embracing the challenges of the future"?

It might not be Tory to write in the Daily Mail, but there's something definitely Tory about accepting the right-wing argument that spending money on public services for the poor is evil and should never be done. Not to mention that she just spouts the usual meaningless platitudes which people (swing voters most of all) hate most about politicians, like Liz Kendall does.

Dappy @TheDappy · 8h 8 hours ago I'm backing @NormanLamb to become leader of the Liberal Democrats and help put power back in the hands of individuals http://backnorman.co.uk