Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Politics

Labour has lost the election, what now?

143 replies

Isitmebut · 08/05/2015 09:06

After 13-years of a New Labour, and trying from 2010 a New-Old Labour as demanded by their core vote, what now?

Commentators talk of the political 'centre', 'centre left' and 'far left' - where is Labour's next direction of travel, who within will take them there, will they still need to keep the trade unions sweet?

Indeed do the trade union barons having brought in THEIR Miliband brother, funded/sponsored the offices of the shadow cabinet and most Labour MPs, and dictated most of the policies of the past 5-years, bear any responsibility for Labour's current loss?

Interesting times.

OP posts:
RagstheInvincible · 11/05/2015 00:50

Labour's so called "core principles" are what holds it back. Blair was right. To get elected, Labour needs the voters of the middle ground and they are not socialists.

MsJuniper · 11/05/2015 07:19

But it shouldn't just be about getting elected. A party's job is not just to get elected, it is to represent the part of the electorate who believe in the same principles. If that is 36% of the electorate then great, but if it's 30% then you need to focus on being a strong opposition and representing those 30%.

Labour has slid about all over the place for years trying to 'win over the electorate', with the result that few feel loyal to it any more. It needs to forget all that and focus on what it stands for, be brave, be consistent, be principled and I think in the long term it will gain more respect and build up a solid core of voters again.

AuntieStella · 11/05/2015 07:26

I've just seen Harriet Harman on the Beeb.

She was talking about the need to analyse why they went wrong, and to look at different regions differently.

This worried me. Because it sounded only a wafer from 'how to spin better'.

There was nothing nothing about principles.

ThisFenceIsComfy · 11/05/2015 11:38

Well there is a case for looking at who we need to listen to and how we can apply our principles to a solution that works for them.

Isitmebut · 11/05/2015 16:17

On the face of it Harriet Harman is right to be confused, but I neither think that she is thinking of spinning or treating the regions differently, as that isn't the answer to the SNP's success.

Politically speaking, it appears on the surface that the Labour Party was too left for England, not left leaning enough for Scotland, and that could never be reconciled if the Labour Party was to have any credibility at future general elections.

In reality the SNP did to Labour, what the SNP and Labour Parties did to the Conservatives in Scotland 20 odd years ago; find a Scottish nerve and keep tugging on it, so just using the Conservative Poll Tax STILL mentioned, Labour should be free of daring to oppose nationalism in around 40-years time - even though it will still mentioned around the camp fires of Scotland.

Clearly the SNP have convinced nationalists and non nationalists alike, 'roaring' from one nationalist party in Westminster will bring more cured bacon back home to Scotland; they're wrong of course, but like any group of nationalist politicians insisting they'll be better off without their colonial masters (lol), history shows that the people have to find out the hard way it is rarely so, especially at the beginning.

A Scottish pound to a penny, similar to Greece, that having whipped up expectations from the people so high, there is only one way from there, and thats d-o-w-n.

So like any overbought or sold situation, Labour should get the dead cat bounce from that over reaction, in the polls by 2020.

P.S. Thats why that 'look' Mrs Sturgeon gave Cameron on Sunday wasn't 'I've got you by the goolies', it was more like, how the hell do I get you to deliver what I have promised back home, bearing in mind my stated mission to freeze you out of government no matter what you proposed in parliament. IMO.

OP posts:
claig · 13/05/2015 22:09

"Labour admits: We underestimated Ukip in the election, they stole our votes
...
One senior Labour source told the Independent: “Ukip damaged us much more than we expected.

“People who didn’t want a Labour-SNP government voted in a Tory one, even though they were not enthusiastic about the prospect.”

In 48 seats retained by the Tories, their majority over Labour was lower than the number of votes for Ukip.

The pattern was repeated in nine seats the Tories gained from Labour.

They included the shocking Morley and Outwood seat where former shadow Chancellor Ed Balls sensationally lost his seat by 442 votes.

Third place Ukip won 7,951 votes. In the 2010 election Ukip only won 1,506 votes in the seat.

The pattern repeated as the Conservatives gained Bolton West, Corby, Derby North, Gower, Plymouth Moor View, Southampton Itchen, Telford and Vale of Clwyd.

It is not clear exactly how many voters shifted from Labour to Ukip, but Robert Ford, senior politics lecturer at Manchester University, calculated Labour’s support dropped by four percentage points in seats where Ukip advanced strongly.

“It is not just a case of Ukip taking Labour votes in places like Hartlepool and Dagenham. It also has the capacity to take from Labour the votes of working-class, totally anti-Tory people who consider Ukip an acceptable option.

“They see Ukip as a vote for English nationalism and sticking one up to the Establishment. It is not just that Ukip can directly take Labour votes, but that it can fuse them with Conservative votes to generate a threat where it would not otherwise exist.”

www.express.co.uk/news/politics/576876/Labour-admits-We-underestimated-Ukip-in-the-election-they-stole-our-votes

claig · 13/05/2015 22:33

Spiked is very good political magazine. They seem to understand what is going on there. They are some of the former communist types who used to write for Living Marxism. They are surprisingly good and non-politically correct.

I think the following explains why Labour really are finished. If you look at their leadership and deputy leadership candidates, you can see that they don't stand a chance of appealing to the working class. They preach to people and are so politically correct that the working class won't go for it for long.

"Where Labour speaks at people, UKIP, with Farage to the fore, speaks to them. And in doing so, it shows how far removed the party-political establishment, and Labour in particular, is from, as Mann puts it, ‘the real world’.

In this, this slow-mo conquest of Labour’s one-time social constituency, this ability to speak to people and promise to take back what Westminster has taken, UKIP’s rise has an unexpected echo: the Scottish National Party. Yes, the SNP is pro-EU, and doesn’t like cigarettes or booze – both of which would have Farage turning in his political grave. But the parallels are there. Both parties, rhetorically at least, resist the ceaseless cosmopolitanism of a distant elite, and both play upon a sense of cultural imperilment. The Tories may have won the election, but the political shift is not Conservative – it’s something rather more populist than that."

www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/labours-loss-has-been-ukips-gain/16962#.VVO-YqLbJMx

claig · 14/05/2015 00:27

Another brilliant analysis from Spiked of the shallowness, hollowness and emptiness at the heart of Labour. They have nothing but platitudes that don't make sense. All they tell us is that they "care". But we don't care, "caring" is nowhere near enough to win the public over.

This is by Mick Hume, whom I think was once the editor of Living Marxism.

Spiked also alone among all the political magazines understand the UKIP phenomenon.

"Labour - A Death is Denied"
...
"Miliband’s execrable interview with Russell Brand and his two-tonne limestone pledge stone, known as ‘Edstone’ since his political demise. Of course these were cringeworthy efforts. Yet they were only visible symptoms of the void at the heart of the zombie Labour Party.

What was striking about the Edstone was that, despite its portentously solid appearance, it said virtually nothing of substance. The pledges – ‘An NHS with time to care’; ‘A strong economic foundation’ — were so nebulous as to be meaningless, slightly lacking the moral clarity of the Ten Commandments they were intended to bring to mind. The only clear message was No4: ‘Controls on immigration.’ The idea that such a programme was somehow ‘too left-wing’ confirms that political language has now been robbed of any real meaning.

Any political party worthy of the name would surely begin a post-mortem by debating what principles it wants to stand for – and then setting those principles out as clearly as possible in order to persuade people to support them. By contrast Labour’s post-election spat is all about how to moderate its image and PR message in order to adapt to the existing state of public opinion – how to say what they imagine voters already want to hear. Labour is a party without a reason to exist beyond its own survival.

No change of leader can address the fundamental problems facing Labour, a party founded to represent a mass trade union movement that no longer exists as anything more than an empty shell. Yet those who cling to the hope of resurrection cannot admit that their party is a zombie of its former self.

That is why the debate is all about what language to use and which leader to promote, rather than which political principles to stand for. Indeed there are few political divisions here on fundamental issues. All sides agree, for example, on Labour’s commitment to more state intervention, notably to restrict freedom of speech and other personal liberties.

None of this means, of course, that Labour might never recover in the polls. Cameron’s Conservative government will undoubtedly get into trouble before long. But it does raise the question of why anybody who wants change should care what happens to Labour, or bother trying to revive the political corpse?

www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/labour-a-death-is-denied/16963#.VVPVo6LbKic

claig · 14/05/2015 21:55

Further up the thread, the effect of UKIP on Ed Balls's lost seat was mentioned.

More evidence that UKIP done for him.

"IT woz UKIP wot dun in Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls, ousted in last week’s election.

The Tory vote moved little in Morley and Outwood, but support for Farage’s fusiliers leapt from 1,500 to nearly 8,000.

The Nigel surge was far and away greater than the tiny Conservative majority of 422, ending the political career of one of Labour’s brightest stars. No point in beating about the bush in the famous “Rhubarb Triangle”: this was working ­class voter “white flight”.

And it was not confined to one Pennine hill town. UKIP came second in seats right across Yorkshire: all three in Hull; Rother Valley, Rotherham, Yvette Cooper’s Normanton, Pontefract and ­Castleford, three in Sheffield, plus ­Wentworth and Dearne.

They were runners-­up in Ed Miliband’s Doncaster North, capturing more than one in five votes, and even more in Chief Whip Rosie Winterton’s Doncaster Central."

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ukip-created-real-balls-up-labour-5699495

ThisFenceIsComfy · 15/05/2015 08:36

Didn't Ed Balls share of the vote go up by 0.4%? In fact actually looking at the figures he only got 9 votes less than last time.

ThisFenceIsComfy · 15/05/2015 08:38

So in fact everyone who voted for him last time voted for him again.

I'm genuinely confused why all the insistence that Ed Balls lost a ton of votes.

ThisFenceIsComfy · 15/05/2015 08:46

UKIP took votes from all areas.

I'm bloody sick of this empty rhetoric that UKIP stole votes from Labour alone. It's just not true and the figures don't back it up.

UKIP took votes everywhere. A fair spread. In fact the swing from Tory to UKIP was greater than Lab to UKIP.

Not to say that quite a few Labour supporters didn't vote UKIP, yes, they did. But not just Labour voters!

It's such a simplistic viewpoint and a dangerous one. It's not really getting to the heart of the reasons why people voted UKIP.

claig · 15/05/2015 08:49

Ed's vote went up by 0.4%, but by how much did Tory and UKIP votes increase and whom did they take those votes from or did the number of people who voted increase from last time?

ThisFenceIsComfy · 15/05/2015 09:06

Here's an interesting fact Claig. BNP stood in 2010. They got 3535 votes. They didn't stand this time round.

In fact the swing towards Tory was on the up in 2010. It went up 9.3% in 2010 and then seemingly continued that trend.

The turnout was the same in both elections.

So make of that what you will.

ThisFenceIsComfy · 15/05/2015 09:11

Here en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morley_and_Outwood_%28UK_Parliament_constituency%29

In the interests of a fact driven debate, above is the link to the election results.

claig · 15/05/2015 09:11

I don't know, I don't understand it, but this is what the New Statesman says

"It was clearly Ukip votes that killed off Balls's win. Ukip came third with 7,951 votes."

www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/05/shadow-chancellor-ed-balls-loses-his-seat-labours-biggest-casualty-election

claig · 15/05/2015 09:16

Looking at the figures, it looks like the LibDem vote collapsed and some probably went to the Tories and more went to UKIP. Without UKIP there, then Labour may have picked up more former LibDem voters.

ThisFenceIsComfy · 15/05/2015 09:16

Well if I'm being honest, I don't begin to understand it either.

All I know is that when you look at the actual results, some of these opinions don't add up.

I don't mind if someone has a different opinion to me but I cannot stand when it is seemingly backed up by hunches or personal agendas.

tiggytape · 15/05/2015 09:38

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

ThisFenceIsComfy · 15/05/2015 09:50

Tiggy yes I agree.

To say that UKIP appealed to just one set of people who voted xyz is not understanding the real reason why people voted.

A source of future problems for all parties.

claig · 15/05/2015 09:56

'I cannot stand when it is seemingly backed up by hunches or personal agendas'

But I have quoted from the New Statesman, the Daily Mirror and the Guardian who felt that UKIP have caused Ed Balls's downfall.

I haven't got a personal agenda about why Ed Balls lost.

claig · 15/05/2015 09:58

I want UKIP to win, but if people underestimate UKIP and think they have nothing to do with Labour's decline in the North of England, then that is better for UKIP.

ThisFenceIsComfy · 15/05/2015 10:25

I never said that I underestimated UKIP or that they aren't responsible for a loss of Labour votes in the North.

But only going on about Labour votes is doing a disservice to the people that did vote UKIP and you are not seeing the whole picture.

JoanHickson · 15/05/2015 10:25

Where have the former political supporters/candidates from BNP gone? Are they now voting Tory and UKIP?

ThisFenceIsComfy · 15/05/2015 10:30

Well it would be an easy assumption to make, wouldn't it but maybe not a fair one. I would need to look at all the constituencies and see if there is a pattern.

Something to do tonight!

Swipe left for the next trending thread