Politics at Westminster | BREAKING: UKIP

[sun_tzu]

They just want power and they don't care how. Are they trying to appeal to people who like to think of themselves as compassionate people who are, when push comes to shove, firmly in the "I'm alright, Jack" boat? In other words people who feel ever so slighlty guilty about voting Tory, but not guilty enough that they'd sacrifice an extra couip!e hundred quid a year.

Did they really lose the election because they were too left wing, as they seem to think? Or did it have more to do with a gimpy leader and an awful campaign in which they didn't even oppose the bizarre narrative that they caused the financial crash, because they didn't wanna defend Blair/Brown spending and be seen as irresponsible, as you said.

Well the last time they won an election with a leader who was not Tony Blair was 1974 (with a majority of 3)
The last time they won a majority of 4 or more with a leader who was not Blair was 1966
The last time they won a triple figure majority with a leader who was not Blair was 1945

The party has to decide if they won those elections under Blair and had unprecedented success because they fought them on the centre ground or because Blair was just that good - but undeniably it was their most successful period in terms of election successes.

They then have to decide if they will grab the centre ground or pick a leader that telegenic in order to win power or if they would sooner put principals first and they would rather object from the left than rule from the centre. #

Would a Corbin lead labour party get the grass roots enthused - probably.
Would a Corbin lead party win over the middle ground - probably not.

 

[soap]

Well the last time they won an election with a leader who was not Tony Blair was 1974 (with a majority of 3)
The last time they won a majority of 4 or more with a leader who was not Blair was 1966
The last time they won a triple figure majority with a leader who was not Blair was 1945

The party has to decide if they won those elections under Blair and had unprecedented success because they fought them on the centre ground or because Blair was just that good - but undeniably it was their most successful period in terms of election successes.

They then have to decide if they will grab the centre ground or pick a leader that telegenic in order to win power or if they would sooner put principals first and they would rather object from the left than rule from the centre. #

Would a Corbin lead labour party get the grass roots enthused - probably.
Would a Corbin lead party win over the middle ground - probably not.

Don't get me wrong, Burnham would have a much better chance of winning and election than Corbyn. Surely there is a middle ground between Corbyn and what the three other candidates are offering though? There feels like absolutely no point in their current position.

 

[Drifter]

******* Harman as backtracked .

 

[Cheesy]

Labour’s stance regarding this seems a bit bizarre. Harman’s argument appears to be that since Labour clearly weren’t seen as electable, they’ll struggle if they just oppose the Tories on everything.

The problem is that, even when a party loses, they should have policies that they ideologically believe in and support. They can adapt obviously, but not for the sole reason of, “Didn’t get us into power”. All this does is make them look like a party who are really confused and don’t know what they stand for. Which is what they kind of are at the moment, to be fair.

 

[Smores]

What I really worry about is Labour absent in their opposition are going to allow the Tories to grow more and more extreme.

They should be humble enough to understand they're role is to represent the centre left first and foremost in opposition.

 

[Ubik]

Labour’s stance regarding this seems a bit bizarre. Harman’s argument appears to be that since Labour clearly weren’t seen as electable, they’ll struggle if they just oppose the Tories on everything.

The problem is that, even when a party loses, they should have policies that they ideologically believe in and support. They can adapt obviously, but not for the sole reason of, “Didn’t get us into power”. All this does is make them look like a party who are really confused and don’t know what they stand for. Which is what they kind of are at the moment, to be fair.

I think the point essentially is that if Labour oppose this as they've unsuccessfully opposed every other measure the last government brought in, they'll once again be branded the party of welfare rather than work, and the Tories will be free again to lower the benefit cap yet further at the next election when they win. The Tories have a coherent and succinct message to sell on the benefits issue - "work should pay more". They even back it with ostensibly Labourite measures like increasing the minimum wage by a greater amount than Labour pledged (which Labour couldn't have got away with, because they're still seen as economic buffoons). The Tories are currently camped on the centre ground of British popular opinion and are digging out foundations. From there, they'll drag the country even further to the right. Unless Labour actually get into the position of winning elections again, they can have all the ideological purity they want, but it's doing zero for the people they claim to be fighting for. Contrast with Blair, vilified on the left for being a Tory, but it was his government that brought in the tax-credits that so many are now dismayed are being cut. Go figure.

 

[Drifter]

Tally Ho!

Hunting vote delayed after SNP U-turn

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33520547

 

[evra]

Hopefully they'll get through changes that address the West Lothian Question now. Sick of Sturgeon and the bloody SNP.

 

[Cheesy]

I’m a bit disappointed in the SNP involving themselves in the whole fox-hunting thing. Even though I’m against it, the SNP shouldn’t be taking anything to do with it since it’s an English only issue.

Still, it’s worth noting that until now, the SNP generally have remained out of English only issues, whereas Scottish MP’s for the other main three parties typically voted on them if it was what their party wanted.

 

[711]

The Tories seem hell-bent on driving Scotland out of the union. I think they'll get their wish soon enough.

 

[sun_tzu]

The Tories seem hell-bent on driving Scotland out of the union. I think they'll get their wish soon enough.

They should just have a referendum where the whole of the UK can vote.
On a serious note though I am very much against repealing the hunting ban so you would have thought I was glad that the SNP said they would vote against it... but actually it really annoyed me as it relates only to England and Wales and the SNP previously said they wouldnt vote on such issues - now sturgon came out of the debates looking principled and like she may be able to breath some life into uk politics - but this just looked like typical party politics and voting against the tories was more important than the issue

 

[711]

They should just have a referendum where the whole of the UK can vote.
On a serious note though I am very much against repealing the hunting ban so you would have thought I was glad that the SNP said they would vote against it... but actually it really annoyed me as it relates only to England and Wales and the SNP previously said they wouldnt vote on such issues - now sturgon came out of the debates looking principled and like she may be able to breath some life into uk politics - but this just looked like typical party politics and voting against the tories was more important than the issue

Yes I know, I think Cameron's intention all along was to goad the SNP, rather than anything actually to do with foxhunting. Quite clever in a way though, it's put the contentious (for the tories) hunting issue out of the way for another parliament at the same time.

 

[sun_tzu]

Yes I know, I think Cameron's intention all along was to goad the SNP, rather than anything actually to do with foxhunting. Quite clever in a way though, it's put the contentious (for the tories) hunting issue out of the way for another parliament at the same time.

its probably helped them with moving the english (and welsh) votes for english (and welsh) laws debate on a bit as well.

 

[berbatrick]

Ya, looking at it now, if he could predict this, it's a political masterstroke by Cameron.

 

[711]

its probably helped them with moving the english (and welsh) votes for english (and welsh) laws debate on a bit as well.

I think the Scots themselves are essentially in favour of this, except they believe that some laws aren't as simple as 'just about england', as they could have a knock-on financial effect on scotland. They therefore, rightly or wrongly, want a say in which laws should be considered as 'england-only'. Cameron disagrees and the fox-hunting bollocks was an attempt to put them on the back foot from the start.

 

[sun_tzu]

I think the Scots themselves are essentially in favour of this, except they believe that some laws aren't as simple as 'just about england', as they could have a knock-on financial effect on scotland. They therefore, rightly or wrongly, want a say in which laws should be considered as 'england-only'. Cameron disagrees and the fox-hunting bollocks was an attempt to put them on the back foot from the start.

yes but in this case it was amaturish

Traditional fox hunting with dogs is illegal across Britain. However, hunts in England and Wales are able to flush out foxes for pest control purposes, using only two dogs - as long as the foxes are shot as quickly as possible. In Scotland an unlimited number of dogs can be used for this purpose.

Conservative MPs have been given a free vote on a proposal to relax the law on the use of dogs so that it is the same in England and Wales as in Scotland - but hunting supporters appear unlikely to muster sufficient numbers to win the vote now he SNP has said it will vote against them.

If they cared about the issue they could have you know changed the Law up in Scotland - it just looks like petty party politics and will help the Conservative narrative over the West Lothian question and the need to act quickly.

Just plain amateurish to loose credibility / moral highground (which is what the SNP seemed to be trying to identify with) over an issue that they have done nothing about in their own backyard.

And its a shame as it may open the door to a quite barbaric "sport" again

 

[Shamwow]

yes but in this case it was amaturish


If they cared about the issue they could have you know changed the Law up in Scotland - it just looks like petty party politics and will help the Conservative narrative over the West Lothian question and the need to act quickly.

Just plain amateurish to loose credibility / moral highground (which is what the SNP seemed to be trying to identify with) over an issue that they have done nothing about in their own backyard.

And its a shame as it may open the door to a quite barbaric "sport" again

Pretty sure they want to change the Scottish law to be more stringent.

"We totally oppose fox hunting, and when there are moves in the Scottish Parliament to review whether the existing Scottish ban is strong enough, it is in the Scottish interest to maintain the existing ban in England and Wales for Holyrood to consider.

"We are in a situation where the Tory government are refusing to agree to any amendments to improve the Scotland Bill - which are supported by 58 of Scotland's 59 MPs - and imposing English Votes for English Laws to make Scotland's representation at Westminster second class.

 

[sun_tzu]

Pretty sure they want to change the Scottish law to be more stringent.

Only after they decided they would vote against the English / Welsh law did they say they would look into changing the Scottish law.. As I say it just looks amateurish as they could have looked into the Scottish law way before now

 

[Pink Moon]

Unbelievable. Postpone a vote because you know you'll lose and then look to bring forward a vote that will disable the people who would've made the difference. Incredibly democratic. According to a BBC poll they did 3 out of 4 adults don't want to make it legal though Cameron gives no fecks about that or the majority of people he runs.

What they want to legalise is disgusting, cruel, barbaric and outdated. I'm proud of the SNP for using what power they have in stopping it (for now, I'm sure). I say stopping it although that's wrong, tbf. We know the scumbags still do it. It's one of the least enforced laws I've ever seen.

Speaking in Crewe, Mr Cameron said: "The SNP government in Scotland is committed to using its new powers to cut and eventually abolish air passenger duty for flights from Scottish airports

"That could distort competition and see business drawn north of the border with a huge impact on airports in the rest of our country so we're reviewing the way air passenger duty works to make sure other cities don't lose out".

Obviously EVEL wasn't in his mind when he said this. And yes, I'm aware fox-hunting wouldn't effect Scotland but you can bet plenty of other decisions made under the bullshit would.

 

[Pink Moon]

Only after they decided they would vote against the English / Welsh law did they say they would look into changing the Scottish law.. As I say it just looks amateurish as they could have looked into the Scottish law way before now

Dry your eyes.

The majority of people in the country don't want it. The SNP have only done what the man leading the country should have done and that is act in the best interests of the majority of the people and not only certain areas and classes of the country.

 

[Untied]

I think the point essentially is that if Labour oppose this as they've unsuccessfully opposed every other measure the last government brought in, they'll once again be branded the party of welfare rather than work, and the Tories will be free again to lower the benefit cap yet further at the next election when they win. The Tories have a coherent and succinct message to sell on the benefits issue - "work should pay more". They even back it with ostensibly Labourite measures like increasing the minimum wage by a greater amount than Labour pledged (which Labour couldn't have got away with, because they're still seen as economic buffoons). The Tories are currently camped on the centre ground of British popular opinion and are digging out foundations. From there, they'll drag the country even further to the right. Unless Labour actually get into the position of winning elections again, they can have all the ideological purity they want, but it's doing zero for the people they claim to be fighting for. Contrast with Blair, vilified on the left for being a Tory, but it was his government that brought in the tax-credits that so many are now dismayed are being cut. Go figure.

I would characterise the current Conservative party as stridently right wing hiding behind a guise of centrism.

The idea that Labour has to adopt current Conservative policies to win, that adopting such policies is a return to the centre ground that won in 1997 ignores the reality that the Conservatives are pursuing a right wing ideologically driven attack upon the state, the poor and the young.

Labour cannot win by accepting these policies.

In other news Mhairi Black killed it with her maiden speech. Well worth a watch.

 

[Ubik]

I would characterise the current Conservative party as stridently right wing hiding behind a guise of centrism.

The idea that Labour has to adopt current Conservative policies to win, that adopting such policies is a return to the centre ground that won in 1997 ignores the reality that the Conservatives are pursuing a right wing ideologically driven attack upon the state, the poor and the young.

Labour cannot win by accepting these policies.

In other news Mhairi Black killed it with her maiden speech. Well worth a watch.

In terms of its attitudes towards welfare and public spending, the median voter is far closer to the Tory position I'd imagine, given they come out well on top in any poll about those issues. And they just won a majority in an election where one of the most well known policies was £12bn of welfare cuts.

 

[Silva]

Yeah, I'd vote for her.

 

[Mockney]

Great speech.

 

[Amethyst]

Excellent stuff.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

She really is excellent at speaking, no doubt about it. I also like the SNP, so she's easily likeable. At the same time, I'm just not sure a 20 year old has any place in parliament -- I could be completely wrong, of course, all the older people haven't done very well so perhaps about time young people got involved. But what life experience does a 20 year old have?

 

[Silva]

She really is excellent at speaking, no doubt about it. I also like the SNP, so she's easily likeable. At the same time, I'm just not sure a 20 year old has any place in parliament -- I could be completely wrong, of course, all the older people haven't done very well so perhaps about time young people got involved. But what life experience does a 20 year old have?

1. She was put there by the voters in her constituency.
2.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

1. She was put there by the voters in her constituency.
2.

I get it. I just find it absurd.

 

[Agent Red]

Charles Kennedy entering the House at 23 changed my mind a lot on the age of MPs and whether young people have the required experience. It's maybe slightly more of a challenge if you're a Minister and haven't had any external experience, but it's not too much of a barrier and there are many excellent MPs past and present who have been 'career politicians'.

I'm not sure that speech is all that though. The sanction story doesn't really add up, he'd only have got a 13 week sanction for missing an appointment if it had been a recurring issue. Whilst the point might still stand I do get annoyed when stories like this are either misrepresented or not investigated properly, undermines the power of the message.

 

[Mciahel Goodman]

Charles Kennedy entering the House at 23 changed my mind a lot on the age of MPs and whether young people have the required experience. It's maybe slightly more of a challenge if you're a Minister and haven't had any external experience, but it's not too much of a barrier and there are many excellent MPs past and present who have been 'career politicians'.

Good point. I guess I just detest the notion of a "career politician". Perhaps so much so that I forget there have been good ones, Kennedy being an excellent example.

 

[Agent Red]

Good point. I guess I just detest the notion of a "career politician". Perhaps so much so that I forget there have been good ones, Kennedy being an excellent example.

I know what you mean, and instinctively it does feel like people will be all the better for that 'real world' experience. But I think people do underestimate how much of the real world MPs see via their own lives and their work in the constituency, plus there's the downside where a lot of MPs come in as Ministers and think they 'get' a whole industry based on their limited experience and make pretty shaky decisions on that basis. Your brother working in construction doesn't mean you understand the whole housing sector etc. etc.

 

[soap]

In terms of its attitudes towards welfare and public spending, the median voter is far closer to the Tory position I'd imagine, given they come out well on top in any poll about those issues. And they just won a majority in an election where one of the most well known policies was £12bn of welfare cuts.

I agree with that. Most people in this country seem to be more appalled by some K Cider drinking father of 6 kids getting a handout than they are by someone who desperately needs help getting it.

To me, though, that Labour should be looking to make better arguments for what they believe in. If they're just gonna take the position that whatever the electorate vote for is what's best for the country then it doesn't even make sense to bother at all. They've not done nearly enough to challenge the narrative peddled by the Tories and that's the main reason they lost the election, I think. If they'd actually challenged the idea that they were at fault for the recession and had a leader who wasn't a complete nerd I doubt the Tories would be in tbh.

I think I understand where you're coming from, you'd rather any of the four Labour candidates than Cameron. Surely it's possible to be more than just slightly to the left of the Conservatives and still be electable though?

 

[sun_tzu]

I think I understand where you're coming from, you'd rather any of the four Labour candidates than Cameron. Surely it's possible to be more than just slightly to the left of the Conservatives and still be electable though?

Well labour managed it after the second world war in 1945 so probably difficult circumstances to replicate
They managed it in 1966
And they got a majority of three in 1974 and that ended pretty badly
So historically Britain has never really voted much for left wing labour
Blair and his centrist policies did far better election wise

 

[soap]

Well labour managed it after the second world war in 1945 so probably difficult circumstances to replicate
They managed it in 1966
And they got a majority of three in 1974 and that ended pretty badly
So historically Britain has never really voted much for left wing labour
Blair and his centrist policies did far better election wise

This lot don't even seem to be the centre ground. Corbyn is obviously too left wing and the other three are probably as close to the Tories as they are to Ed Miliband, who was hardly a radical. I'm not a fan of Blair at all, I don't think many people are after the Iraq war, and I'd rather him to any of those three.

 

[Ubik]

I agree with that. Most people in this country seem to be more appalled by some K Cider drinking father of 6 kids getting a handout than they are by someone who desperately needs help getting it.

To me, though, that Labour should be looking to make better arguments for what they believe in. If they're just gonna take the position that whatever the electorate vote for is what's best for the country then it doesn't even make sense to bother at all. They've not done nearly enough to challenge the narrative peddled by the Tories and that's the main reason they lost the election, I think. If they'd actually challenged the idea that they were at fault for the recession and had a leader who wasn't a complete nerd I doubt the Tories would be in tbh.

I think I understand where you're coming from, you'd rather any of the four Labour candidates than Cameron. Surely it's possible to be more than just slightly to the left of the Conservatives and still be electable though?

It's tough with Scotland gone and unlikely to come back any time soon. To win a majority next time round, Labour likely need to win Kensington. Which even Blair didn't get close to. It's a colossally shit situation to be in with the electoral maths now against them and a public that's as hawkish on spending as it has been in generations, and I'm not sure many people in Labour get quite how bad it is. In fact given how popular Corbyn's proving, I'm absolutely certain they don't.

 

[sun_tzu]

This lot don't even seem to be the centre ground. Corbyn is obviously too left wing and the other three are probably as close to the Tories as they are to Ed Miliband, who was hardly a radical. I'm not a fan of Blair at all, I don't think many people are after the Iraq war, and I'd rather him to any of those three.

Would have been interesting to see Dan jarvis and chuka umuna in the race - oh well perhaps next time as I can't imagine the next leadership election being more than a couple of years away

 

[Untied]

In terms of its attitudes towards welfare and public spending, the median voter is far closer to the Tory position I'd imagine, given they come out well on top in any poll about those issues. And they just won a majority in an election where one of the most well known policies was £12bn of welfare cuts.

http://www.populus.co.uk/Poll/Welfare-Reform-and-Spending-Priorities/

This Populus poll is quite revealing really.

As you say a significant majority of Brits support welfare cuts (To say I am disappointed in my country at times is a massive understament but never mind).

But the poll also reveals that they don't want pensions cut, they don't want working-age benefits cut, they don't want child benefit cut. Essentially they don't want any of the things that actually constitute the welfare budget to be cut.

In other words the British public have been peddled a lie about scroungers living off the tax payer and swallowed it whole.

 

[Silva]

In other words the British public have been peddled a lie about scroungers living off the tax payer and swallowed it whole.

Good summary.

 

[soap]

It's tough with Scotland gone and unlikely to come back any time soon. To win a majority next time round, Labour likely need to win Kensington. Which even Blair didn't get close to. It's a colossally shit situation to be in with the electoral maths now against them and a public that's as hawkish on spending as it has been in generations, and I'm not sure many people in Labour get quite how bad it is. In fact given how popular Corbyn's proving, I'm absolutely certain they don't.

A fair point. To be honest, I'm looking at from a perspective of being able to form a minority government propped up by the SNP. I'd be just as fine with that as I would with a Labour majority but obviously Labour themselves can't look at it like that . Still I think they're doing themselves no favours at all now. Their election campaign was a rather incoherent mess, and none of the potential leaders feel like an improvement on that besides Corbyn - and there's no amount of rousing speeches and excellently argued points that could lead to him winning a majority!

Would have been interesting to see Dan jarvis and chuka umuna in the race - oh well perhaps next time as I can't imagine the next leadership election being more than a couple of years away

I imagine there's a lot of truth behind the idea that they both saw it as a poisoned chalice and are eyeing up 2025 instead. I think we sometimes underestimate just how many people simply vote for whichever bloke they like more at General Elections, Jarvis' 15 years in the Para's would be a massive boost in that regard.

 

[evra]

Dry your eyes.

The majority of people in the country don't want it. The SNP have only done what the man leading the country should have done and that is act in the best interests of the majority of the people and not only certain areas and classes of the country.

Well a free vote on fox hunting was in the Conservative manifesto and they have a mandate to carry out that manifesto because they won the election.