General Election 2015

[LJS]

Tristram Hunt ducks out of leadership race after discovering he's a Tory

21-05-15

TRISTRAM Hunt will not stand in the Labour leadership contest after finding out he was actually a Conservative all along.

The shadow education secretary made the discovery after some basic research on Wikipedia to find out his weaknesses as a candidate.

He said: “I knew I was a Blairite, but when I found out my father is a life peer in the House of Lords and that I went to Westminster School I thought ‘how odd’.

“I then discovered that my cousin is Virginia Bottomley, the former Tory cabinet minister. That is deeply suspicious.

“And, of course, my name is ‘Tristram’.

“Tristram.”

On checking his beliefs, Hunt found that he supported low taxes on wealth creators, cutting benefits for low-income households and tighter immigration controls.

He added: “Also, apparently I’m the MP for Stoke-on-Trent. I don’t know where that is.”

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/tristram-hunt-ducks-out-of-leadership-race-after-discovering-hes-a-tory-2015052198479

Edited May 21, 2015 by LJS

[eFestivals]

Of course there is a trade off between principle & electability. Your assumption that that necessarily means Labour shoudl lurch to the right is what I would challenge. We simply don't know what would happen if Labour went further left because no one has tried it for over 30 years.

But we do know that the majority in 2015 voted for parties that are clearly to the right of Labour. If any of those to-the-right voters were trying to send Labour a message with their vote, that message can only be "move to the right".

But "lurch to the right" isn't what I'm saying they have to do anyway.

It's really more the case of only needing to appear less-left. Shouting loudest about the things people care most about.

For example, the mansion tax is an example of a bad bad policy in the eyes of many 'normal' people. One of the things people care most about is their house, and the specifics of the mansion tax made some people feel like they'd be caught by it sooner of later - and just about everyone (rightly or wrongly) feels it's other people who should be paying more, and not them. With the mansion tax, it would be impacting on very normal people in very normal houses in London soon enough, and plenty of 'well to do' but not really 'wealthy' and certainly not in 'mansions' in the home counties. Etc, etc, etc.

Policies need to be what enough people will buy into, and too many people will have seen that one as too unfair towards 'normal' people.

If instead it had been an extra tax on (say) the top 5% of properties in any council-tax area, that would have been much more acceptable* because of its proportionality, and because it's not something most people would fear catching them at sometime in the future via rising house prices.

(* tho perhaps difficult to work in practical terms).

Then again, changing local taxes is what destroyed Thatcher. Perhaps local taxation is now taboo to touch, and they need to stay away from that one entirely.

The real problem is that there's no easy answers to complex problems, and the public are resistant to even the small changes which might nudge things in the right direction.

Perhaps the SNP have the real answer after all. Talk grand and do fuck all.

As for the Scottish Labour party going it alone, I'm not quite sure what you are on about here. I merely stated that it is being increasingly mentioned as an option and I am clearly talking about in the context of the UK still existing. Sure I'd like to see an Independent Labour Party in an Independent Scotland but that is not what I am on about.

Whether Scotland is within the UK or out of the UK, what's stopping Scotland forming its own Scottish Labour Party? Only Scotland is.

What has been proved is that alex had some meetings with Rupert & Alex agreed to lobby the Uk government on Rupert's behalf although he never actually did that lobbying because there was nothing to lobby for.

in breech of the ministerial code.

That classes as corruption when it's giving a businessman special privileges to the benefit of his business.

How provenly-corrupt does he have to get before you consider him unfit to hold public office?

This has now been magnified into Alex "selling Scotland" to Rupert. you don't think you're maybe just exaggerating a tad here Neil?

Salmond holds Scotland's highest public office.

What was Salmond offering to sell Murdoch? Salmond's personal services as a member of the public, or Salmond's official role?

At the end of the day it was definitely Scotland that was being sold but at a minor level, tho I'm deliberately making it hard hitting because I can't believe just what saps people in Scotland have been over this.

Surely just the knowledge that he'll act corruptly if he believes it's worth his while makes him unfit for public office?

He's been caught with the smoking gun in his hand, ffs. What does it take?

[eFestivals]

TRISTRAM Hunt...

“I then discovered that my cousin is Virginia Bottomley, the former Tory cabinet minister. That is deeply suspicious.

fuck me, the Bottomley's are taking over.

Virginia is known as Auntie Ginny to another spelling mistake of a surname, the lovely Jeremy.

Jeremy somehow inherited Auntie Ginny's MP seat.

Jeremy somehow forgot he was related to Auntie Ginny, and denied that he knew they were related.

Which is odd, because Auntie Ginny had also given Jeremy's daddy a nice cushy govt job, before having little Jeremy receive bundles of govt contracts worth millions.

And it's odd, because little Jeremy fucked up those contracts so much they were cancelled, but he set up another firm with a different name and got bundles of replacement contracts worth even more money. And now he's a self-made man.

And then he inherited Auntie Ginny's seat as an MP, and all the time he didn't know she was Auntie Ginny.

Which is odd, because suddenly he did, and he did know she was Auntie Ginny after all, but no explanation for how he forgot the times he denied it.

It's all so very very odd.

And don't ever suggest Peter Bottomley was a member of the Monday Club else he might sue you. Perhaps the Bottomley's taking over has something to do with the slow child abuse enquiry?

[LJS]

Neil says " I'm deliberately making it hard hitting"

translation: Neil is wildly exaggerating out of all proportion.

[LJS]

But we do know that the majority in 2015 voted for parties that are clearly to the right of Labour. If any of those to-the-right voters were trying to send Labour a message with their vote, that message can only be "move to the right".

But "lurch to the right" isn't what I'm saying they have to do anyway.

It's really more the case of only needing to appear less-left. Shouting loudest about the things people care most about.

For example, the mansion tax is an example of a bad bad policy in the eyes of many 'normal' people. One of the things people care most about is their house, and the specifics of the mansion tax made some people feel like they'd be caught by it sooner of later - and just about everyone (rightly or wrongly) feels it's other people who should be paying more, and not them. With the mansion tax, it would be impacting on very normal people in very normal houses in London soon enough, and plenty of 'well to do' but not really 'wealthy' and certainly not in 'mansions' in the home counties. Etc, etc, etc.

Policies need to be what enough people will buy into, and too many people will have seen that one as too unfair towards 'normal' people.

If instead it had been an extra tax on (say) the top 5% of properties in any council-tax area, that would have been much more acceptable* because of its proportionality, and because it's not something most people would fear catching them at sometime in the future via rising house prices.

(* tho perhaps difficult to work in practical terms).

Then again, changing local taxes is what destroyed Thatcher. Perhaps local taxation is now taboo to touch, and they need to stay away from that one entirely.

The real problem is that there's no easy answers to complex problems, and the public are resistant to even the small changes which might nudge things in the right direction.

Perhaps the SNP have the real answer after all. Talk grand and do fuck all

I find your approach to politics profoundly depressing.

You seem to share much of what I believe in, but are prepared to abandon your principles because you don't think the punters will buy them. Thank god others didn't think your way or we'd still have slavery & women wouldn't have the vote.

Edited May 21, 2015 by LJS

[gary1979666]

I find your approach to politics profoundly depressing.

You seem to share much of what I believe in, but are prepared to abandon your principles because you don't think the punters will buy them. Thank god others didn't think your way or we'd still have slavery & women wouldn't have the vote.

I think you're confusing Neils politics with his view about how labour can appeal to more people. Although Neil and I far from agree on politics, he is talking sense on this.

Think of the population as a graph, an off centre bell curve. The parties have to position themselves on the x axis and they'll win votes from the people either side of that point. Labour were too far left, if they go further left, towards the taper, yes they'll win new voters, but will also lose some. Its clear they need to drift right where more people are. This falls down with Scotland however as the SNP have a wider appeal, as could see ukip style people as well as left leaning voters drawn to it.

[kaosmark2]

Were they too far left?

[LJS]

I think you're confusing Neils politics with his view about how labour can appeal to more people. Although Neil and I far from agree on politics, he is talking sense on this.

Think of the population as a graph, an off centre bell curve. The parties have to position themselves on the x axis and they'll win votes from the people either side of that point. Labour were too far left, if they go further left, towards the taper, yes they'll win new voters, but will also lose some. Its clear they need to drift right where more people are. This falls down with Scotland however as the SNP have a wider appeal, as could see ukip style people as well as left leaning voters drawn to it.

I think you are missing my point. Politics is not just about following public opinion. It's about leading it & changing it.

[LJS]

I think you're confusing Neils politics with his view about how labour can appeal to more people. Although Neil and I far from agree on politics, he is talking sense on this.

Think of the population as a graph, an off centre bell curve. The parties have to position themselves on the x axis and they'll win votes from the people either side of that point. Labour were too far left, if they go further left, towards the taper, yes they'll win new voters, but will also lose some. Its clear they need to drift right where more people are. This falls down with Scotland however as the SNP have a wider appeal, as could see ukip style people as well as left leaning voters drawn to it.

I think you are missing my point. Politics is not just about following public opinion. It's about leading it & changing it.

Oops I said that twice

Edited May 21, 2015 by LJS

[viberunner]

and yet something else would have happened if the LibDems didn't do what they did, and that 'something else' might have been worse. You'd doing the same mindless thing as you do with Scottish indy, and look at what we have and say "that's bad I want none of it" without considering how the alternatives might work out. Not everything that's different is better.

I could argue you should be giving the SNP the same benefit-of-the-doubt as you're asking for the Lib Dems. But it's an unnecessary courtesy to request: the Lib Dems are dead and that's that, and the SNP will win next years Scottish Parliament elections... bet your shoes on it.

yeah, because all of the other media owners get invited into Downing Street (or Salmond's place) to dictate to that elected leader what their policies MUST be.

Can you please tell the class which policies Murdoch dictated to Salmond? Specifically?

Murdoch is the only media owner who has been 100% caught corrupting elected govt office holders - and the only one he's certain to have corrupted is Salmond.

Specifics? Corrupted Salmond how? Money? How much? Coverage... for what? Be specific.

Salmond is much more willing than just to talk. He sold Scotland to Murdoch. This is proven beyond all doubt.

Can you please link the proof and also state the specifics. Thanks.

Salmond is corrupt.

Possibly but you'll have to prove corruption.

Evidence-based specifics will do just fine.

[viberunner]

And don't ever suggest Peter Bottomley was a member of the Monday Club else he might sue you.

Among sitting MPs who joined the club after that and other elections, along with those who became MPs were:

• Peter Bottomley (Worthing West)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Monday_Club#Membership

Edited May 21, 2015 by viberunner

[kaosmark2]

I think you are missing my point. Politics is not just about following public opinion. It's about leading it & changing it.

Oops I said that twice

Worth repeating.

I don't like the trend of politicians trying to convince people that they share their prejudices, as opposed to convincing people that their policies are worth caring about more than petty prejudices.

[eFestivals]

Neil says " I'm deliberately making it hard hitting"

translation: Neil is wildly exaggerating out of all proportion.

No, I'm just trying to get you to recognise and acknowledge corruption in your (ex) First Minister.

Any country who lets the boss get away with that without a squeak is not heading for a better place. It's heading for banana republic.

[eFestivals]

I find your approach to politics profoundly depressing.

You seem to share much of what I believe in, but are prepared to abandon your principles because you don't think the punters will buy them. Thank god others didn't think your way or we'd still have slavery & women wouldn't have the vote.

Principles mean fuck all if not enough others share them.

I'd rather get some of what I'd like than none of what I'd like.

The country voted to the right. There's no getting away from that, unless you want principles but no power.

Even Scotland voted centre-right, but you want to delude yourself it voted left. If it voted left, show us the socialist policies it's implementing with massive support.

You can't. Instead you can show me the most pathetic bit of land reform going that's only worsted by the English enclosures and Scottish clearances, where no land ownership is reformed. If that tells you nothing, you're seeing nothing.

[eFestivals]

I think you're confusing Neils politics with his view about how labour can appeal to more people. Although Neil and I far from agree on politics, he is talking sense on this.

Think of the population as a graph, an off centre bell curve. The parties have to position themselves on the x axis and they'll win votes from the people either side of that point. Labour were too far left, if they go further left, towards the taper, yes they'll win new voters, but will also lose some. Its clear they need to drift right where more people are. This falls down with Scotland however as the SNP have a wider appeal, as could see ukip style people as well as left leaning voters drawn to it.

Nicely put, apart from where you mention Scotland. Scotland didn't vote for principled left-ism, it voted for emotional nationalism.

[eFestivals]

I think you are missing my point. Politics is not just about following public opinion. It's about leading it & changing it.

I agree, but if the vision you offer is something that is unrecognisable as people's wants, they won't vote for it.

People don't much care how the NHS is organised, what they want most of all from it is the health services they can get from it.

People don't much care what format education services take (LEA's, Academies, Free schools, etc), they want decent education for their kids.

Etc, etc, etc.

From the public's point of view, the political/technical arguments over these things are meaningless - particularly at a time when the services aren't perceived as delivering for them. If you make the services deliver, you can get away with doing almost anything to the structure of how those services are delivered.

And if you promise big change, you make people fear the consequences of those changes as much as you might have them wishing those changes bring hoped-for improvements.

The vision needs to be better services, rather than an argument over how the services are funded or delivered. It's with that political/technical argument that Labour lose the attention of the public.

The tories managed to sidestep all that, via the very simple con of not saying where any axe would fall while promising the earth. They did that in both 2010 and 2015.

Labour aren't going to win the public's attention with the sorts of political/technical arguments you're saying they should be presenting. The vast majority of the electorate are thick &/or not interested in that sort of bollocks.

It's by avoiding that sort of bollocks that the SNP managed to clean up, by convincing (mostly thick*) people they stand for something better but without getting into any of the detail (which they don't have anyway) of how it might come about - just see their FFA policy, and Sturgeon's "not relevant" for everything about how Scotland might actually achieve it in the way she suggests it will be delivered.

(* something that applies to all electorates, that's not a slur on Scotland).

It's very definitely not deeper political arguments that people want to see, it's the simple. Simple policies for simple-minded people. Tell them they're getting something better and they'll buy it. Tell them how they'll get that something better and they drift off into boredom.

Again, the SNP gets to shows how it works. 'Better Together' went for the facts, while the SNP avoided getting into the facts - including stuff such as not telling the mass of their supporters they were wrong in believing that Scotland more-than pays it way within the UK. The facts are out there, but most people are too thick to reference the facts, they're much happier to be told what they want to hear as that requires none of thinking they find difficult.

[eFestivals]

I could argue you should be giving the SNP the same benefit-of-the-doubt as you're asking for the Lib Dems. But it's an unnecessary courtesy to request: the Lib Dems are dead and that's that, and the SNP will win next years Scottish Parliament elections... bet your shoes on it.

If you were, you'd first have to say how the situations are in any way similar.

I can do with a laugh, so please go ahead.

Can you please tell the class which policies Murdoch dictated to Salmond? Specifically?

Who knows? Murdoch only provided one half (and perhaps not even all of that half) of the emails .... while Salmond decided to keep the emails in his possession to himself - ever wondered why?

My own suspicion is that Murdoch has been promised the role of Scottish state broadcaster.

Which will be so much better than the Scottish BBC that you love so much.

Specifics? Corrupted Salmond how? Money? How much? Coverage... for what? Be specific.

Salmond agreed to break the ministerial code to lobby at Westminster for Murdoch, to the benefit of his business interests and to the detriment of competitors, and as unfair competition.

You know, doing the exact thing that hated Westminster is despised for from so many in Scotland.

Can you please link the proof and also state the specifics. Thanks.

Leveson.

Possibly but you'll have to prove corruption.

it's already been proven in a court of law.

Evidence-based specifics will do just fine.

Leveson.

And I'll just point out that your own attempts at what you're requesting of me are laughable. For instance, the stats you provided for Salmond/Murdoch meetings - wrong (cos Salmond has since been caught having lied about the number of meetings), and exceedingly out of date.

If you wish to comment on current affairs, it helps if you follow current affairs - or even stuff from 4 years ago.

Edited May 22, 2015 by eFestivals

[gary1979666]

I think you are missing my point. Politics is not just about following public opinion. It's about leading it & changing it.

The key bit of your post is "not just". Meaning there is at least some of it needed. It's easier to get people to follow you if you're standing closer to them than by shouting from a long way away. If you've met them half way, you can show them some bit they're familiar with and give them comfort, gain their trust* and show them the route ahead to pastures greener. If it's too different straight away, then they'll go back to what they know. (I'd use the frog and boiling water analogy, but maybe not the best use!)

*And that was a biggie in the election - Labour were behind on leadership and the economy in the public polls; they need to turn that around.

Remember, all the while you have Cameron relative close to them on the right whispering sweet nothings about lower taxes, etc. They (generally) like him, trust him (relatively) and if he plays it right (no pun intended) on the economy, EU, cost of living etc then Labour need to be a voice that's a lot closer.

Essentially, you can't lead and change public opinion if you're too far away from it to begin with.

Edited May 22, 2015 by gary1979666

[Comfy Bean]

Even Scotland voted centre-right........................

Just you keep telling yourself that sir

I think you are confusing NS with Liz Kendall

You will remember the qoute about NS entering politics because of Margaret Thatcher. You need to think that one through as I think your getting mixed up

The SNP stood loud and clear on an anti austerity agenda and spoke non-stop about locking the Tories out ( we know Labour voted with the Tories on the austerity cuts in Jan ). They spoke of fairness and investing in public services plus an end to nuclear weapons. They did not try and out UKIP UKIP ( labours own words ) and do not want to exit Europe. When questioned on increasing immigration numbers they said.... " good ".

In fairness I can hardly believe that they won 56 seats while the Tories won 1 ( one ) in Scotland either. Have a look at the " maggie simpson " map. Progressive politics is the name of the game up here. Down your way the numbers showed something different - fair enough, people will vote for that they " believe " in. Again I think the map illustrates that. Hopefully the 56 SNP MP`s can have a positive influence on Westminster in the meantime but as we all know the direction of travel is for Scotland to leave the Union, just look at the numbers.

Most agree that 10 years ago around 20 odd % were in favour of Indy. That has went 20 - 30 - 40- -50 and now sits around 55% in favour. Lots of people have quite clearly changed their minds ( in huge numbers ) and with an SNP victory up here next year then yet more people will change their minds I reckon.

As I`ve said before, I heard Jim Sillars speak a while back about how he thought that the only way Labour would have a " socialist re-birth " would be within an Indy Scotland. Everything we have seen since the GE would suggest that he might well have been right ( see Liz Kendall ).

Sometime in the future, Scotland will be independent and it is likely that the SNP will form " our " first Government. They will be challenged by a Labour party freed up from chasing votes in middle england and if the SNP don`t deliver then the working class folks in Scotland will quickly replace them with a " real " Labour party.................in my opinion of course Hopefully we will all be around to see how it plays out

[gary1979666]

Hopefully the 56 SNP MP`s can have a positive influence on Westminster in the meantime

Sounds like the biggest impact they're having is introducing a game of musical chairs in the commons.

[Comfy Bean]

My own suspicion is that Murdoch has been promised the role of Scottish state broadcaster.

Which will be so much better than the Scottish BBC that you love so much.

You are entitled to your suspicion. I suspect that Salmond was hoping that SKY would base themselves here, call centre jobs etc.

As far as I have seen no-one on here has ever " defended " Salmond or given him a free pass on Murdoch ( feel free to prove me wrong with a quote or two ). His relationship with Murdoch has never been described in a positive way be anyone has it ? I remember suggesting that you start your own thread about Murdoch where we can all agree with you about him. You really don`t like Salmond and his continuing success is clearly getting to you. All I have ever done is point out that Salmond is not alone and that even Labour have had a seedy relationship with him ( atleast you now admit to knowing about Blair the godfather )

It " bugged " me that the Sun came out AFTER the SNP were polled as winning all the seats but I accept that is the business that Murdoch is in, just as he previously ran with a front page of Salmonds SNP logo in a noose ( classy ).

I`m not defending Slamond`s relationship with Murdoch , I 100% agree with you that it involved many mistakes and errors of judgement but I was happy to let the people of Gordon take the decision on Salmond. You obviously disagree with them having that right to choose.

Salmond has said that Murdoch is a " remarkable man " he also said this..............

"As the correspondence shows, our engagement with News International executives has been focused on boosting jobs, investment and economic activity in Scotland — exactly the same approach as we take towards all employers. Quite a contrast with the hypocrisy of Labour, the Tories and Lib Dems," said a spokesman for the First Minister.

"Ed Miliband, David Cameron and Nick Clegg have all met Rebekah Brooks more often in one year — including at the oyster and champagne garden parties — than Alex Salmond has in four years."

I am not defending Salmonds relationship with, or admiration for, Murdoch but I suspect the last part of the quote above may also be true

[eFestivals]

Sounds like the biggest impact they're having is introducing a game of musical chairs in the commons.

no no no, it's radical politics to force Skinner from the seat he's sat in for 30 years.

This is the 'better' they've promised, forcing the only guy in the commons who actually challenges stuff to shut up.

[Comfy Bean]

Sounds like the biggest impact they're having is introducing a game of musical chairs in the commons.

Your not going to like any influence they have Gary. Fair enough after their desperation to lock your boss out.

Surely your not one of the " po-faced " moaners that was raging at them actually clapping................?

Us sending down a good working class 20 year old girl from Paisley is surely a good influence on the old place, no ? *

* The people of Paisley recognised that she also has qualities beyond the ones I listed above and voted for her in great numbers.

[Comfy Bean]

no no no, it's radical politics to force Skinner from the seat he's sat in for 30 years.

This is the 'better' they've promised, forcing the only guy in the commons who actually challenges stuff to shut up.

You`ve made that up haven`t you. Skinner is still sitting where he has always sat. Don`t believe the hype. The right wing media will " attack " the SNP at every opportunity. I`m disappointed you are acting as their cheer leader and promoting guff like this. They want to keep the establishment and union in place. Progressive is the last thing they want to see.

[gary1979666]

Your not going to like any influence they have Gary. Fair enough after their desperation to lock your boss out.

Surely your not one of the " po-faced " moaners that was raging at them actually clapping................?

Us sending down a good working class 20 year old girl from Paisley is surely a good influence on the old place, no ? *

* The people of Paisley recognised that she also has qualities beyond the ones I listed above and voted for her in great numbers.

Mine was a more tongue in cheek comment. Though that is what has been most reported as far as I can see so far.

I'm pretty sure sure the SNP surge aided Monsieur Cammers into Downing St, so happy with that influence. FFA will also help plug the NHS E&W gap too, so grateful to that influence - they can feel free to assert that as soon as they like.

I have no problem with the candidate with the most votes showing up to Parlaiment. Although I would hold her working class cred in slight question, as not sure she's actually had a job.