Who could take over from Ed Miliband?

[DynamicSpirit]

Just as I'm hoping your posts aren't whitewashing them for the mistakes they made.

He he! touché! If it gives you some confidence that I'm not (at least consciously) doing that, I'll say a bit about where I'm coming from.

Yes, I'm a member of the Labour party, I've never made any secret of that on these forums. That obviously implies I agree with Labour more than the Conservatives. However I also am very opposed to the tribalism that affects UK politics so much - frankly, I despair at the way Labour politicians (and indeed many ordinary members) expect to find fault with everything the Conservatives do and ditto for Conservatives finding fault with everything Labour does. I can think of several areas on which I think the Conservatives have done quite well and I'm happy to say so (as one example: the way they've managed the railways - investing in growing the network while focusing on cutting costs, seems pretty sensible to me. On that issue, it seems to me they have a much better record than Labour did).

On the economy, I think the last Labour Government didn't invest sufficiently in improving the UK's infrastructure and in our manufacturing ability - both of which are crucial parts of growing the economy, and I think they sometimes overregulated. And I suspect there is still insufficient awareness in the part of those on the left who wish to end austerity that doing so is only going to work if you emphasize capacity-enhancing investment as well as consumption. However, on the issue of whether Labour spent too much and is responsible for the recession, and on whether we need austerity, I will say that I've looked at the detailed figures and they just don't bear up to many of the statements that Conservative (and, often, LibDem) politicians make about UK finances under Labour.

I also have some training in economics - not enough to be an expert for sure, but enough to know that the economy works, roughly speaking, as a circular flow of money, and treating Government finances the way you would treat household finances is absurdly simplistic - to the point of being wrong - because it neglects the way that much of the money the Government spends simply comes straight back to the Government in the form of taxes etc. from the economic activity that spending stimulates. That provides another reason why I believe that the Conservatives are wrong on their approach to finances and the claims they make about the last Labour Government.

I should stress though that I'm not opposed to balancing the Government books - I see many reasons why it's a good idea in principle, it's just that if you're going to aim to do it, you need to look at the big picture of what the overall impact of spending decisions on the economy is going to be. Looking at it only from an accounting point of view isn't sufficient.

I also by the way strongly disagree with muddythefish's characterization of certain people being 'enemies'. To my mind, it's important to recognize that most people, of all political pursuasions, are seeking the best for the country, within their own understandings of the situation.

 

[muddythefish]

I also by the way strongly disagree with muddythefish's characterization of certain people being 'enemies'. To my mind, it's important to recognize that most people, of all political pursuasions, are seeking the best for the country, within their own understandings of the situation.

How do you think Tories brought up in affluent households who went to Eton and Oxbridge have any "understandings of the situation" of ordinary people? The answer is , they haven't a clue about the struggles of the man in the street which is why Call Me Dave's false blokeishness and "We're All in This together" mantra (like One-Nation Conservatism) is a con and a lie designed to get ordinary working people to believe they might be somehow better off voting Conservative.

The Conservative party exists to preserve the status quo and keep those with wealth and power at the top and those at the bottom of society kept firmly in their place. Oh and just to reinforce the point, make sure the weakest and poorest pay the heaviest price for a problem they did not create while giving tax cuts to the wealthiest, and then take away their trade union and employment rights just to load the dice further in favour of employers and deny workers the prospect of being paid a decent wage.

You're being incredibly naive on how Tories think and how they see the world. They are the enemy because that is how they see ordinary people like you and me.

 

[meridian2]

muddythefish[/B]'s characterization of certain people being 'enemies'. To my mind, it's important to recognize that most people, of all political pursuasions, are seeking the best for the country, within their own understandings of the situation.

Probably the most sensible post on this thread, but I'm still intrigued as to why you think I'm 'blaming' Labour,or were you being disingenuous using that word?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

How do you think Tories brought up in affluent households who went to Eton and Oxbridge have any "understandings of the situation" of ordinary people? The answer is , they haven't a clue about the struggles of the man in the street

Yes, someone who went to Eton probably does lack some understanding of what life is like for poorer people. That doesn't make that person an 'enemy', it just makes them a human being who lacks some understanding (which true for all of us: We all lack some understanding of what life is like for people brought up in different circumstances to ourselves).

which is why Call Me Dave's false blokeishness and "We're All in This together" mantra (like One-Nation Conservatism) is a con and a lie designed to get ordinary working people to believe they might be somehow better off voting Conservative.

It would only be a con and a lie if it was being put on as a deliberate deception. How do you know it isn't what David Cameron genuinely believes?
I think we'd both agree that what the Conservatives have done in Government has, on the whole, hurt poorer people and helped richer people in a way that strongly suggests the Conservatives, on the whole, really do have very little idea of what life is like for many people. But that's not remotely the same as 'lying'

You're being incredibly naive on how Tories think and how they see the world. They are the enemy because that is how they see ordinary people like you and me.

Really? I can think of a couple of Conservative supporters or members that I know personally. I believe they are fundamentally mistaken in their understanding of many issues, and that leads them to support what in my view are very bad policies. But I've never seen any indication that those individuals are lacking in a desire to help ordinary people - not least because the people I'm thinking of are - by any reasonable standards - ordinary people.. I would argue that you are being too cynical and too ready to misinterpret the motives of others.

 

[muddythefish]

Yes, someone who went to Eton probably does lack some understanding of what life is like for poorer people. That doesn't make that person an 'enemy', it just makes them a human being who lacks some understanding (which true for all of us: We all lack some understanding of what life is like for people brought up in different circumstances to ourselves).

In my book it does.

It would only be a con and a lie if it was being put on as a deliberate deception. How do you know it isn't what David Cameron genuinely believes?
I think we'd both agree that what the Conservatives have done in Government has, on the whole, hurt poorer people and helped richer people in a way that strongly suggests the Conservatives, on the whole, really do have very little idea of what life is like for many people. But that's not remotely the same as 'lying'

It is a deliberate deception. It is a lie because they know exactly what they are doing

Really? I can think of a couple of Conservative supporters or members that I know personally. I believe they are fundamentally mistaken in their understanding of many issues, and that leads them to support what in my view are very bad policies. But I've never seen any indication those individuals they are lacking in a desire to help ordinary people - not least because the people I'm thinking of are - by any reasonable standards - ordinary people.. I would argue that you are being too cynical and too ready to misinterpret the motives of others.

Yes really. A couple of Conservatives of my acquaintance "hate" (their words) the Labour party and everything it stands for. They want to see it destroyed and perpetual Conservaive government. These are not "nice" people. I would argue you are being too kind towards people who are willing to do you and your family harm. You're also very naive.

 

[pemma]

Ed Milliband's failing was not that he was too far left-wing, but that he provided no alternative economic narrative to the Conservatives. People ended up thinking that austerity was a necessity, and that the party who was going to do the most about it was the Tories.

I think Corbyn's potentially on to something with re-nationalisation. The Conservatives have been criticised for selling Northern Rock and Royal Mail at the wrong time and not making as much money as they can. However,at the last election the only alternative Labour offered was let a state owned company bid for rail franchises in response to East Coast returning profit to the state and then being let to Stagecoach/Virgin. What's not been picked up on by Labour up until now is that profits from HS1 are now boosting the pensions of workers in Canada, opposed to benefiting Britains.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Probably the most sensible post on this thread, but I'm still intrigued as to why you think I'm 'blaming' Labour,or were you being disingenuous using that word?

Apologies if that wasn't your intention.

But since you ask the things you posted that gave me the impression you were (roughly speaking) blaming Labour for the sake of blaming Labour included:

His party failed to take adequate steps to protect banks during the peak of the financial crisis.

Ascribing something bad to Labour, but it looks very questionable. I don't offhand recall any demands at the time for more protection for the banks. Given that events were moving quickly and the Government did not have the benefit of hindsight, it's hard to see what additional protection they could have given.

They (Labour) got us in this mess ....

Well, that certainly looks like blaming Labour while ignoring wider circumstances at the time.

Austerity is inevitable when the country has overspent so drastically...

Implicit assumption of overspending by Labour - but no links provided to substantiate this.

2. Austerity IS inevitable in a financial cycle, vis a vis recession-austerity-recovery.

Presenting as if it's a fact something that's at best a very questionable proposition, which - so far as I can tell - many professional economists would disagree with.

3. 'Brown had run up a deficit of 43%.

Quoting a completely meaningless statistic against Labour.

 

[meridian2]

I was blaming the policy/ies,and the lack of accountability and responsibility around at the time of the height of the financial crisis. Whether, from that,you infer I am blaming Miliband/Brown/the entire Labour party at the time is moot.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I was blaming the policy/ies,and the lack of accountability and responsibility around at the time of the height of the financial crisis. Whether, from that,you infer I am blaming Miliband/Brown/the entire Labour party at the time is moot.

Blaming the policies for what? The financial crisis of 2008 started in the USA and spread from there to the rest of the World. It might or might not be appropriate to blame the US Government's policies for that, but blaming the UK Government's policies for a crash that started in the USA is clearly absurd (although, sadly, it seems to be what many in the Conservative and LibDem parties would have us believe). Is that what you are arguing?

You would be on somewhat less implausible grounds if you are claiming merely that UK Government policies at the time exacerbated the impact of the financial crisis within the UK, without having caused the crisis. But even if that is what you are arguing for, the fact that you've not provided a shred of evidence in favour if this claim, but appear to be simply restating it over and over again, does not in my view do you credit.

 

[meridian2]

But I have provided evidence, evidence which people have dismissed. That's not my fault. There's plenty of consensus out there supporting my arguments, so do drop the pithy attempt at withering if you're not at least going to explain why the evidence I have provided is so discredited.
I sometimes forget just how little public opinion matters to you MPs.

 

[TheKnightWho]

But I have provided evidence, evidence which people have dismissed. That's not my fault. There's plenty of consensus out there supporting my arguments, so do drop the pithy attempt at withering if you're not at least going to explain why the evidence I have provided is so discredited.
I sometimes forget just how little public opinion matters to you MPs.

The evidence is that Brown has been internationally lauded for his work during the crisis.

On the other hand, the criticisms of Labour have come from the Tory party and the right-wing press...

 

[meridian2]

Evidence?

 

[TheKnightWho]

Evidence?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/13/opinion/13krugman.html?_r=0

http://www.newstatesman.com/politic...-leaves-british-politics-legacy-few-can-rival

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/feb/06/gordon-brown-save-world-uk

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...economics-prize-and-praises-Gordon-Brown.html

 

[Tetchytyke]

Yes, someone who went to Eton probably does lack some understanding of what life is like for poorer people. That doesn't make that person an 'enemy', it just makes them a human being who lacks some understanding (which true for all of us: We all lack some understanding of what life is like for people brought up in different circumstances to ourselves).

Don't confuse a lack of sympathy with a lack of empathy.

The Tories know precisely what they are doing to poor people. They simply do not care.

As for Labour and the economy, it's fair to say that there should have been more control over the banks; perhaps they should have let one of them fail. The two biggest sticks that people hit Gordon Brown with: the deficit in 2010, and the sale of gold at below value, were both caused by Brown attempting to save the skin of the bankers. Many on the left would equally argue he shouldn't have done this.

But the argument that Labour were "to blame" for this, and that the Conservatives are the saviour, doesn't bear scrutiny. Back in 2007/8 the Tories were haranguing Labour for having too much regulation, not too little. And under the last Tory government the national debt increased by around 40%; Osborne put more on the governmental credit card in five years than his predecessor did in thirteen.

As for austerity being "inevitable", many leading economists (such as David Blanchflower of the Ivy League Dartmouth College) argue that austerity is neither inevitable nor essential, and that austerity causes more harm than good. Five years of wage stagnation affected income tax returns, passing more of the burden on to the lucky few who saw wage inflation, and higher unemployment figures saw income tax receipts fail to keep up with inflation.

The Tories have been very good at persuading people government finances are like domestic finances- spend less and you'll get out of debt- but the reality is that they're far more like commercial finances. Companies who do not invest tend to struggle more, and for longer, than companies which maintain investment.

 

[meridian2]

I didn't say the Tories were 'saviours'; what is it with people on here putting words in people's mouths just to enhance their own arguments?

 

[Butts]

How do you think Tories brought up in affluent households who went to Eton and Oxbridge have any "understandings of the situation" of ordinary people? The answer is , they haven't a clue about the struggles of the man in the street which is why Call Me Dave's false blokeishness and "We're All in This together" mantra (like One-Nation Conservatism) is a con and a lie designed to get ordinary working people to believe they might be somehow better off voting Conservative.

The Conservative party exists to preserve the status quo and keep those with wealth and power at the top and those at the bottom of society kept firmly in their place. Oh and just to reinforce the point, make sure the weakest and poorest pay the heaviest price for a problem they did not create while giving tax cuts to the wealthiest, and then take away their trade union and employment rights just to load the dice further in favour of employers and deny workers the prospect of being paid a decent wage.

You're being incredibly naive on how Tories think and how they see the world. They are the enemy because that is how they see ordinary people like you and me.

The Conservative Party could not be elected on the votes of "The Toffs" alone as there are not enough of them

This would indicate that a lot of "ordinary people" - whatever that means vote for them and enable them to get elected. So if you are holding a body of people responsible for the actions of the Tories then the target of your opprobrium should perhaps be a little closer to home.

Perhaps someone on the minimum wage would consider a Train Driver on 50K a year a "toff" relative to themselves ?

Where do you draw the line ?

 

[valenta]

The Conservative Party could not be elected on the votes of "The Toffs" alone as there are not enough of them

This would indicate that a lot of "ordinary people" - whatever that means vote for them and enable them to get elected. So if you are holding a body of people responsible for the actions of the Tories then the target of your opprobrium should perhaps be a little closer to home.

Perhaps someone on the minimum wage would consider a Train Driver on 50K a year a "toff" relative to themselves ?

Where do you draw the line ?

There is no line to be drawn - whilst it is true that those who earn a higher income are more likely to vote Tory, it is not clear cut. Arguably the typical "middle class" family would benifit financially from Tory party polices, it is the poorest and most vulnerable in society who the Tory benefit cuts hurt the most, and that's why policies such as the bedroom tax are so disgusting, they don't impact the average person but hurt the poorest. It seem to me that those voting Conservative from the days of Thatcher onwards vote through self interest - because their policies benifit them, not thinking of the poorest in society. The capitalism that the Tories advocate damages the poorest and encourages self interest.

 

[Clip]

There is no line to be drawn - whilst it is true that those who earn a higher income are more likely to vote Tory, it is not clear cut. Arguably the typical "middle class" family would benifit financially from Tory party polices, it is the poorest and most vulnerable in society who the Tory benifit cuts hurt the most, and that's why policies such as the bedroom tax are so disgusting, they don't impact the average person but hurt the poorest. It seem to me that those voting Conservative from the days of Thatcher onwards vote through self interest - because their policies benifit them, not thinking of the poorest in society. The capitalism that the Tories advocate damages the poorest and encourages self interest.

Be that as it may, however that's not the point that muddythefish was making. He made a direct to 'toffs' and the conservatives - not the average person who is only voting for their self interest who they don't mention.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Be that as it may, however that's not the point that muddythefish was making. He made a direct to 'toffs' and the conservatives - not the average person who is only voting for their self interest who they don't mention.

Complete this well-known saying.....

"TOFF is to upper-class people as ........ is to lower-class people".

 

[meridian2]

Be that as it may, however that's not the point that muddythefish was making. He made a direct to 'toffs' and the conservatives - not the average person who is only voting for their self interest who they don't mention.

That point was clearly lost on me then because it is at odds with the reality I've seen, that of the amount of individual welfare increasing per head the past 5 years.

 

[valenta]

Be that as it may, however that's not the point that muddythefish was making. He made a direct to 'toffs' and the conservatives - not the average person who is only voting for their self interest who they don't mention.

My argument is that a link cannot be made. Not all conservative voters are "toffs" because the appeal of the conservatives extends to the ordinary middle class person, presumably who you refer to when talk of the average person.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That point was clearly lost on me then because it is at odds with the reality I've seen, that of the amount of individual welfare increasing per head the past 5 years.

Really, I thought the Tories overtly acted on a policy of supposedly higher wages and lower welfare. As I suggested in my previous post the average middle class family will more than likely benefit financially from Tory economic policies (perhaps what you are getting at when you talk of individual welfare increasing) but this is at the expense of the poorest in society. This article seems to contradict your point - http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/apr/29/poverty-child-rising-welfare-cuts-tory-claims

 

[Tetchytyke]

I didn't say the Tories were 'saviours'

Who said you did?

That point was clearly lost on me then because it is at odds with the reality I've seen, that of the amount of individual welfare increasing per head the past 5 years.

That depends on how you define "welfare", and whether you're using it as a synonym for "benefits".

The Tories choose to lump the whole DWP budget as "welfare", and they choose to portray that as meaning "welfare benefits". However just over half the entire DWP budget (about £92bn) goes in the state pension, with a further £7bn going in pension credit. Nobody would define the state pension as a benefit.

https://fullfact.org/economy/welfare_budget_public_spending-29886

Where non-pension spending has increased it has been in housing benefit, which is paid to landlords and is increasingly precisely because of the Tories' deregulation of the rental market. The biggest increases have been in the pension payments though, something which the Tories sold as an election pledge.

I suggested in my previous post the average middle class family will more than likely benefit financially from Tory economic policies

On a superficial level, almost certainly. The amount I pay in income tax has been steadily decreasing, and at the last budget I'll be about £120 a year better off with the tax cuts.

However in reality that's all swallowed up by the other tax changes, where the Tories have repeatedly increased secondary taxes. The income tax cut is nice, sure, but the change to Vehicle Excise Duty means my car tax will go up by £150 a year. The increase of VAT from 17.5% to 20% had a huge impact on my spending, as did the repeated increases in tax for petrol and alcohol, as has the increase in insurance premium tax. And that's before we mention the last Tory government- whose budget adviser at the time was a certain David Cameron- sticking 10% VAT on domestic fuel.

The problem with many of these tax changes is that they pass the burden from the rich to the middle classes, and then from the middle classes to the poorest. Instead of a progressive tax system based on income, we have a regressive tax system where more of the burden- as a percentage of available income- is places on the poorest people. VAT affects the poorest people the most, as does VED and as does fuel tax.

 

[valenta]

The problem with many of these tax changes is that they pass the burden from the rich to the middle classes, and then from the middle classes to the poorest. Instead of a progressive tax system based on income, we have a regressive tax system where more of the burden- as a percentage of available income- is places on the poorest people. VAT affects the poorest people the most, as does VED and as does fuel tax.

Yes, precisely the aim of the Tory party!

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Really, I thought the Tories overtly acted on a policy of supposedly higher wages and lower welfare. As I suggested in my previous post the average middle class family will more than likely benefit financially from Tory economic policies

Actually I would question whether an 'average' middle class family will benefit from Tory economic policies. The main effect of pursuing austerity is likely to be to make the overall economy smaller than it would otherwise be - and that's going to hurt a lot of people's incomes slightly. Most people won't be aware of it though because it's likely to be masked by the natural growth of the economy that almost invariably happens each year as technology improves and as the world comes out of recession. A lot of people will mistakenly think that they are benefitting from Tory economic policies even though the opposite is true.

 

[Butts]

The problem with many of these tax changes is that they pass the burden from the rich to the middle classes, and then from the middle classes to the poorest. Instead of a progressive tax system based on income, we have a regressive tax system where more of the burden- as a percentage of available income- is places on the poorest people. VAT affects the poorest people the most, as does VED and as does fuel tax.

Surely the most regressive tax of all is levied on Tobacco which disproportionately affects poor people who make up the majority of smokers.

With your reference to VED and Fuel Tax are you saying a poor person can be expected to have a Car ?

Just what is your definition of a "poor person" ?

 

[ainsworth74]

Surely the most regressive tax of all is levied on Tobacco which disproportionately affects poor people who make up the majority of smokers.

I would guess the argument would be that smoking is a choice (and help is available for those who are addicted to help them quit) whilst having a car often isn't a choice due to poor public transport.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

A You Gov poll for the Times has Jeremy Corbyn as the clear favourite to be the next Labour leader.

Tomorrow’s Times has a new YouGov survey of the Labour party leadership election electorate (members, union affiliates and £3 supporters). The figures show Jeremy Corbyn’s lead increasing in the last three weeks – back then he had a seventeen point lead on the first round and just scraped over the line after the reallocation of second and third preferences. The new figures have him comfortably ahead – in the first round preferenes are Corbyn 53%, Burnham 21%, Cooper 18%, Kendall 8%. If the final round ends up Corbyn vs Burnham then Corbyn wins by 60% to 40%, if it ends up Corbyn vs Cooper then Corbyn wins by 62% to 38%. The full tabs are here and Peter Kellner’s commentary is here. https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/08/10/comment-corbyn-extends-lead/

As far as the poll is concerned Jeremy Corbyn is currently solidly ahead (though of course, ballot papers haven’t yet gone out and there is a month to go – indeed, as I write it’s not too late to join Labour and have a vote in the election!). Polling party members is hard, there are not publically available targets to weight or sample too, and there has already been a huge influx of new members and new £3 sign-ups about whom we know little. YouGov’s data has the right sort of proportions of new and old members (thought the final proportions are obviously impossible to know yet), but it’s impossible to know if the sample is right in terms of things like social class. However, looking at the tables Jeremy Corbyn is ahead in every age group and amongst members from every region, amongst working class and middle class members, and amongst members, trade union affiliates and £3 sign-ups.

Corbyn’s least strong group is people who were party members back before 2010 among whom either Cooper or Burnham would beat Corbyn on second and third preferences. People who joined the Labour party between 2010 and 2015 are more pro-Corbyn, meaning amongst all pre-2015 party members the race would be very close. People who have signed up since 2015 are extremely pro-Corbyn, pushing him into the lead.

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/

 

[Butts]

I would guess the argument would be that smoking is a choice (and help is available for those who are addicted to help them quit) whilst having a car often isn't a choice due to poor public transport.

So are you saying a "poor person" can afford to run a car - again I ask what is your definition of poor ?

Everyone is bandying about this term without specifying what they actually mean - arguably the same could be said about allegedly rich people.

 

[Gathursty]

The better definition of poor IMO is what is the minimum I need in life to 'get by' and monetise it.

Note 'get by' is subjective but I'm certain you could hire some survey monkeys to hammer out what the reasonable person defines as the minimum to 'get by'. Then return to your thoughts on policies with this new definition.

 

[Aldaniti]

A You Gov poll for the Times has Jeremy Corbyn as the clear favourite to be the next Labour leader.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/

I'm not surprised. If I was a member of the Labour Party, on balance and all things considered, I would probably vote for him too - in fact anyone except the useless three who are competing with him, not one seems to have a principle or a brain that connects with the spine - but I'm not. If he does win, which seems to have come to a shock to the current Labour Party establishment, it's not beyond the realms of possibility that he could win a General Election. He is affable, personable, has beliefs and conviction (whether you agree or not), comes across as genuine and seems to be very much a breath of fresh air compared to the current crop of career politicians. I could never vote for him because he would want to scrap Trident amongst a few other 'red lines' that I have, and whilst capitalism is in a period of disrepute, I wouldn't want to see it replaced with socialism. But I'm really looking forward to the return of the North West Water Board, Norweb and British Gas. Do we think the trains will be in BR blue or Large Logo, and will we see the return of Maxpax coffee and the Lyons individual fruit pie?