General Election 2015

[LJS]

Now, if labour could only find a leader with the human touch like this, they could sell some radical policies to the electorate

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2ta7bs_a-friend-in-america_news

[Comfy Bean]

Remember that wee party from Scotland who got 6 seats at the general election only 5 years ago. Around half the voters in Scotland voted for them in May and they now have 56 seats. They are parked on the centre left ground in Scotland and their votes went through the roof. we can't just resign ourselves to a 2 party system surely. The snp look to have proved that if you build it they will come :-)

5 years ago nobody could have predicted the extent of labours demise up here in a general election. Worryingly they seem to think a return to new labour is the answer.

[LJS]

Really Alistair?

"ALISTAIR Carmichael has admitted he "misstated his awareness" of a leaked memo which suggested Nicola Sturgeon wanted David Cameron to remain Prime Minister."

http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/news/home-news/bid-to-unseat-memo-gate-mp-alistair-carmichael-tops-60000.1433863807

Misstated his awareness?

What a dick!

Edited June 9, 2015 by LJS

[eFestivals]

I never imagined in a million years that the Greens were offering what anything like a majority would vote for. I imagine the Green party themselves were of a similar mind. They're radical... which is why I like them.

If Labour were anywhere near what they used to stand for, I might have considered voting for them. They have some serious soul searching to go through if they want to get anywhere near being a government in the near (10 years...?) future.

You know, when the suffragettes started their cause, they were sneered at by the majority. Just sayin'.

If Labour were anything near what they used to stand for, they'd be even more unelectable. The world has changed. Labour has failed to change with it.

Even the tories have woken up to the modern world, with stuff like gay marriage. The Labour mindset is still pretty much stuck in the 70s, with added confusion from the Blairites.

And as it seems to have passed you by, a single-issue pressure group is something very different to a political party - which is precisely why (for instance) the UKIP vote was far lower than the numbers which will vote in favour of UKIP's primary aim in the EUref.

Labour will find out what modern working people want by listening to them. ALL of them, not just the ones that match their prejudices.

[eFestivals]

So the electorate votes Tory with a hint of UKIP, so the answer for Labour is to listen to Tory & UKIP voters?

For the dim, that's the answer. For the real world that's much more more nuanced, it's not.

As I've said more than once, no party has a monopoly on good ideas.

For example, if you care to look at the UKIP manifesto, there's actually some (just some!) rather good ideas in there that are popular with people and which are a very good fit with Labour.

To take an easy example, making tampons VAT-free. That's a policy that at least 50% of the population can buy into, it's something everyone can understand the reasoning for, and it's something that properly relates to people's everyday lives that they can see an immediate personal benefit from.

In contrast, Labour advocated implementing Leveson. I'm not saying that's something they should abandon, but it's something far removed from people's daily lives, and something that most people who buy and read newspapers don't much see the need for (else they wouldn't be buying those newspapers in the first place).

So Labour needs to be singing very loudly about policies such as the first one, and they need to try and avoid getting into a big debate around the second one - perhaps by not even putting it in their manifesto in the first place. It doesn't mean they can't do it, and they can brush off any accusations of rigging things in their favour by pointing out that it's the recommendations of an independent inquiry that the PM at the time said he'd implement but bottled.

In a similar vein, the need to sing loudly about building new houses - and actually do it if they get power - and they need to avoid stuff like the 'mansion tax' (particularly with its arbitrary line of £2M). Fears by ordinary people about one day getting caught by a mansion tax that's guaranteed to come in out-weigh the benefits they see from new houses that might not ever even get built (cos just about every party for 30+ years has said it will build adequate housing and hasn't).

(that mansion tax trap could have been easily avoided by doing it another non- arbitrary way, such as applying it to the top 10% of housing in any council area - which makes clear to the 90% that it's something they won't ever get hit by [better still would be total reform of land taxes, tho that moves things back to scaring people that it's them who'll get hit by the changes]).

Labour did too much navel-gazing and presented high-minded things that don't relate to ordinary people, that they have trouble seeing the benefit from.

People want a govt that they feel benefits them. That's what you need to be selling them.

[eFestivals]

Now, if labour could only find a leader with the human touch like this, they could bankrupt a nation before it's even on its feet.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2ta7bs_a-friend-in-america_news

corrected for you.

Have you listened to the FFA bullshit she slipped in there?

Edited June 10, 2015 by eFestivals

[gary1979666]

So the electorate votes Tory with a hint of UKIP, so the answer for Labour is to listen to Tory & UKIP voters? Presumably it's just a case of finding the right spot on the political spectrum where they don't lose too much of their core support but win over enough selfish bigoted racists to get a majority. How inspiring! I'm writing the placards now for the great revivalist march to Labour victory in 2020. This is the "vision" you are selling.

I am not suggesting for a minute that anyone "preaches a the electorate" that is a ridiculous argument.

There's a bit of a generalisation there for a start and also a lack of understanding of why Labour lost. If you imagine the left-right line and put all the Tory voters on it, there will most certainly be a chunk at the right end, but I bet you'd be surprised at how may were in the middle or veering to the left. They are the voters Labour need to win over and can win over. Are they bigotted for not trusting labour with the economy or not thinking Ed a good enough leader? Are they selfish for thinking that a freeze on energy prices isn't a practical policy? If they can win that trust again, then there's no reason they can't take the electorate to the left. But if they balls it up, then they reinforce the message that the Tories are better for the country.

As for the Greens - is it selfish to want to kick the debt burden on to your kids? I think so.

OK, I know we don't have absolute poverty in the way we once have & in some ways I exaggerate for effect. My 17 year old daughter recently started her first job zero hours contract, £3.79 an hour (i may be a few pence out) She's lucky - she's just filling in before she goes to Uni & she has parents who support her. Imagine if she was expected to support herself? What if she wasn't bright enough to go to Uni. Imagine she had parents who didn't think that was a good thing to do & wouldn't give her the support she needs to go there.

What is Labour offering these people?

Ed's Labour at least offered them something - it looks highly unlikely that the next gen labour party will match that .

I'm not really sure what Ed was offering them? I don't think he was offering more jobs. He offered a ban on ZHC's which may have meant the job she has probably wouldn't even exist.

To that matter, what were other parties specifically offering your daughter?

[eFestivals]

Remember that wee party from Scotland who got 6 seats at the general election only 5 years ago. Around half the voters in Scotland voted for them in May and they now have 56 seats. They are parked on the centre left ground in Scotland and their votes went through the roof. we can't just resign ourselves to a 2 party system surely. The snp look to have proved that if you build it they will come :-)

5 years ago nobody could have predicted the extent of labours demise up here in a general election. Worryingly they seem to think a return to new labour is the answer.

were those people voting for austerity, or against it?

Answers on a postcard to The Suicide Squad, SNP Headquarters, Scotlandshire.

Edited June 10, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Really Alistair?

"ALISTAIR Carmichael has admitted he "misstated his awareness" of a leaked memo which suggested Nicola Sturgeon wanted David Cameron to remain Prime Minister."

http://www.heraldscotland.com/mobile/news/home-news/bid-to-unseat-memo-gate-mp-alistair-carmichael-tops-60000.1433863807

Misstated his awareness?

What a dick!

easily outdone by a claim that the financial implications of a £8Bn black hole in policies - 15% of govt revenue (the cost of a whole country's health services) - is "not relevant".

And you voted for it.

What a dick!

AND, unlike Carmichael, YOU were aware of it.

Edited June 10, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Are they selfish for thinking that a freeze on energy prices isn't a practical policy?

Nope, they merely noticed that prices can go down as well as up.

Which made a policy like a price freeze madness at the current time when prices have been seen to fall.

Miliband was a moron with this. Because it was a very popular policy at the time he first came out with it, he was determined to stick with it in all circumstances.

He should have dropped it, and just stuck with the "reform the energy market" part if he wanted to keep any of it (not that that would have been a good seller to voters - it's another of those high minded things which the public has problems relating to).

[LJS]

corrected for you.

Have you listened to the FFA bullshit she slipped in there?

I knew you'd like that bit.

I was a bit disappointed that she said that, simply because I knew it would give you the opportunity to duck the main point i was making. Here is a politician who comes across as relaxed & real and, at the very least, gives the impression of believing in what she says.

Compare & contrast with Cameron, Clegg & Miliband & their potential successors where appropriate.

Whether we like it or not, the personality of a party leader is critical in modern politics. in that sense little St Nic towers above the rest of them.

Edited June 10, 2015 by LJS

[eFestivals]

I knew you'd like that bit.

I was a bit disappointed that she said that, simply because I knew it would give you the opportunity to duck the main point i was making. Here is a politician who comes across as relaxed & real and, at the very least, gives the impression of believing in what she says.

Compare & contrast with Cameron, Clegg & Miliband & their potential successors where appropriate.

Whether we like it or not, the personality of a party leader is critical in modern politics. in that sense little St Nic towers above the rest of them.

PMSL .... you might as well be saying "it doesn't matter that her policies are dangerous to the welfare of 5M people, she has a nice smile".

PS: not long ago, people used to admire Clegg for similar reasons.

Edited June 11, 2015 by eFestivals

[LJS]

There's a bit of a generalisation there for a start and also a lack of understanding of why Labour lost. If you imagine the left-right line and put all the Tory voters on it, there will most certainly be a chunk at the right end, but I bet you'd be surprised at how may were in the middle or veering to the left. They are the voters Labour need to win over and can win over. Are they bigotted for not trusting labour with the economy or not thinking Ed a good enough leader? Are they selfish for thinking that a freeze on energy prices isn't a practical policy? If they can win that trust again, then there's no reason they can't take the electorate to the left. But if they balls it up, then they reinforce the message that the Tories are better for the country.

As for the Greens - is it selfish to want to kick the debt burden on to your kids? I think so.

I think the truth is that no one knows for certain why Labour lost and the Labour Party don't seem desperate to find out why. Let's just elect a new leader & carry on seems to be their motto. There is a popular assumption that they lost by being too left wing. I think that is at best over -simplistic and at worst depressingly defeatist. But where most of us on here who care to some extent about the Labour party seem to agree is that they should considering why they lost & deciding the direction they want to go in BEFORE electing a leader. They have a massive task to win the next election assuming The Tories succeed in eliminating the deficit and survive the EU referendum & push through boundary changes. Simply changing leaders seems to b=me to be pretty unlikely to succeed.

As for the Greens & selfishness - is it selfish to bring the deficit down on the backs of the low paid, disabled & unemployed?

I'm not really sure what Ed was offering them? I don't think he was offering more jobs. He offered a ban on ZHC's which may have meant the job she has probably wouldn't even exist.

To that matter, what were other parties specifically offering your daughter?

nothing, that's my point. Labour for all their many faults were at least committed to trying to do something about ZHC's and had committed to a real increase in the minimum wage.

easily outdone by a claim that the financial implications of a £8Bn black hole in policies - 15% of govt revenue (the cost of a whole country's health services) - is "not relevant".

And you voted for it.

What a dick!

AND, unlike Carmichael, YOU were aware of it.

My post was taking the piss out of Carmichael's bizarre use of language. Sadly you can only look at any post as a way to attack the SNP.

Oh "AND, unlike Carmichael, YOU were aware of it. " are you implying Carmichael was unaware of what he was doing. Had he been hypnotised? was he drunk?

Nope, they merely noticed that prices can go down as well as up.

Which made a policy like a price freeze madness at the current time when prices have been seen to fall.

Miliband was a moron with this. Because it was a very popular policy at the time he first came out with it, he was determined to stick with it in all circumstances.

He should have dropped it, and just stuck with the "reform the energy market" part if he wanted to keep any of it (not that that would have been a good seller to voters - it's another of those high minded things which the public has problems relating to).

Look, I lobbed my fair share of criticism at Ed, although I did rather warm to him throughout the campaign. you stoutly defended him ... until he lost & now you are sticking the boot in. How attractive. How admirable.

PMSL .... you might as well be saying "it doesn't matter that her policies are dangerous to the welfare of 5M people, she has a nice smile".

PS: not long ago, people used to admire Clegg for similar reasons.

Again, you deliberately choose to ignore the point I am making to launch you 2,345th (approx) attack on the economic viability of SNP policies. I think we've got it, Neil.

Edited June 11, 2015 by LJS

[eFestivals]

My post was taking the piss out of Carmichael's bizarre use of language. Sadly you can only look at any post as a way to attack the SNP.

Oh "AND, unlike Carmichael, YOU were aware of it. " are you implying Carmichael was unaware of what he was doing. Had he been hypnotised? was he drunk?

No, I wasn't implying he wasn't aware of it.

I was using his choice of words to demonstrate that more than just MPs can make daft choices with full knowledge of what their choice will mean back onto them.

Look, I lobbed my fair share of criticism at Ed, although I did rather warm to him throughout the campaign. you stoutly defended him ... until he lost & now you are sticking the boot in. How attractive. How admirable.

Labour lost. They lost for a number of different reasons, including some of the policy choices they made.

Like the utility bill price freeze. In a time of falling prices, it simply doesn't make sense.

Did you think it did?

I'll continue to consider all ideas as I see fit, thanks all the same.

Again, you deliberately choose to ignore the point I am making to launch you 2,345th (approx) attack on the economic viability of SNP policies. I think we've got it, Neil.

Image is deception. People thought Blair was lovely, too.

Stick with what counts, which is policy. Then hopefully we won't end up finding out too late that we've voted for a punch in the face.

Now, back in the real world of SNP policies, how do you think it's going to go....?

[LJS]

No, I wasn't implying he wasn't aware of it.

I was using his choice of words to demonstrate that more than just MPs can make daft choices with full knowledge of what their choice will mean back onto them.

"AND, unlike Carmichael, YOU were aware of it" clearly implies Carmichael was unaware of it.

& Carmichael did not make a "daft" choice he made a calculated choice to smear an opponent without any concern for the truth.

Labour lost. They lost for a number of different reasons, including some of the policy choices they made.

Like the utility bill price freeze. In a time of falling prices, it simply doesn't make sense.

Did you think it did?

No i thought it was pretty stupid. but maybe they didn't have time or money to reconvene the focus group that told them an energy freeze would be a great policy & heaven forfend that they should come up with a policy on their own without a Fuckus group!!

I'll continue to consider all ideas as I see fit, thanks all the same.

I should hope so too - as will i!

Image is deception. People thought Blair was lovely, too.

Stick with what counts, which is policy. Then hopefully we won't end up finding out too late that we've voted for a punch in the face.

As you know, i am a huge admirer of Michael Foot - great policies, tons of conviction & principle...would be a total disaster as a leader. I detest the fact that we need to have "media friendly" leaders. I really really do. I think you have to go back a long long way to find an election won on policy alone. I am not asking you to accept one line of of SNP policy, I am only suggesting that you recognise that the SNP's success is due in part to having a likeable & believable leader.

Your examples of Clegg & Blair are indeed relevant - they illustrate the down side of personality politics & Sturgeon may end up the same way ( I doubt it, but who knows?) but the simple & very very sad fact is you need to be able to perform in public to lead a modern political party.

Now, back in the real world of SNP policies, how do you think it's going to go....?

I genuinely have no idea. I think the SNP have a hugely difficult task - they almost have too much support - they can't realistically deliver much at Westminster & they have a lot of new inexperienced MP's who may become restless. The recent poll showing 60% support for them ( dk's excluded) is frankly astonishing. I have lost track of where this bandwagon is leading & I don't envy Sturgeon trying to keep expectations in check.

presumably their surge will end at some point ... or will it?

Edited June 11, 2015 by LJS

[eFestivals]

& Carmichael did not make a "daft" choice he made a calculated choice to smear an opponent without any concern for the truth.

True.

I see you're still struggling to see the parallels.

Never mind, eh.

[eFestivals]

No i thought it was pretty stupid.

Then don't be the moron that says I'm sticking the boot into Ed when I point out a "pretty stupid" policy he championed.

[LJS]

Then don't be the moron that says I'm sticking the boot into Ed when I point out a "pretty stupid" policy he championed.

OK, if you don't be the moron that thinks that lost them the election!

[gary1979666]

I think the truth is that no one knows for certain why Labour lost and the Labour Party don't seem desperate to find out why. Let's just elect a new leader & carry on seems to be their motto. There is a popular assumption that they lost by being too left wing. I think that is at best over -simplistic and at worst depressingly defeatist. But where most of us on here who care to some extent about the Labour party seem to agree is that they should considering why they lost & deciding the direction they want to go in BEFORE electing a leader. They have a massive task to win the next election assuming The Tories succeed in eliminating the deficit and survive the EU referendum & push through boundary changes. Simply changing leaders seems to b=me to be pretty unlikely to succeed.

As for the Greens & selfishness - is it selfish to bring the deficit down on the backs of the low paid, disabled & unemployed?

nothing, that's my point. Labour for all their many faults were at least committed to trying to do something about ZHC's and had committed to a real increase in the minimum wage

Are ZHC really that much of an issue- 2/3 of people on the think favourably of them. There are problems with some, but to ban them outright seems a bit overkill.

Agree Labour need to work out why they lost. I don't want them in, but do wantvan effective opposition. I do think that believing they weren't left enough is a bit delusional. All the analysis thats coming out is reporting its down to distrust on the economy, distrusting the Eds, too narrow a focus on the very low /high incomes, ...

They need to work out why they haven't won a majority in 50 years without Tone!

What do you think a move to the left will do to the tory vote?

Edited June 11, 2015 by gary1979666

[pink_triangle]

For all the talk about the conservatives having a persuasive argument and labour being clueless, this election was decided on 3 out of every 100 people in the electorate who were considering red or blue, going for the latter. They are smaller margins than the analysis of the election would suggest. For all the talk about conservatives persuading the electorate, nearly 2/3 of us were far from persuaded. The voting system hands more power than they deserve, but I don't think the election was a great endorsement of the conservative party.

[LJS]

Are ZHC really that much of an issue- 2/3 of people on the think favourably of them. There are problems with some, but to ban them outright seems a bit overkill.

Agree Labour need to work out why they lost. I don't want them in, but do wantvan effective opposition. I do think that believing they weren't left enough is a bit delusional. All the analysis thats coming out is reporting its down to distrust on the economy, distrusting the Eds, too narrow a focus on the very low /high incomes, ...

They need to work out why they haven't won a majority in 50 years without Tone!

What do you think a move to the left will do to the tory vote?

I don't think I said they lost because they weren't left enough ... & if I did I haven't expressed myself very well - I believe they should move to the left but they also need to campaign with passion & conviction to persuade voters that that is the right course. If all they do is move to the left & campaign as unconvincingly as they did this year they would be trounced.

& i think you need to check your maths - 41 years ... not 50

[kaosmark2]

For all the talk about the conservatives having a persuasive argument and labour being clueless, this election was decided on 3 out of every 100 people in the electorate who were considering red or blue, going for the latter. They are smaller margins than the analysis of the election would suggest. For all the talk about conservatives persuading the electorate, nearly 2/3 of us were far from persuaded. The voting system hands more power than they deserve, but I don't think the election was a great endorsement of the conservative party.

I agree. That said, the voting system won't change until the Tories don't have power, so it's a bit of a catch 22 situation.

[pink_triangle]

I agree. That said, the voting system won't change until the Tories don't have power, so it's a bit of a catch 22 situation.

It suits labour when they are in power as well, that's the problem!

[kaosmark2]

It suits labour when they are in power as well, that's the problem!

Yes, and I still won't forgive those guilty of not following up the Jenkins report out of their arrogant desire to maintain power.

[eFestivals]

OK, if you don't be the moron that thinks that lost them the election!

You think voting "pretty stupid" is the way to go...?

It certainly explains a lot.