Labour has lost the election, what now?

[Isitmebut]

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.

'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.'

I agree. I am a former Conservative voter, so I understand very well why tens of thousands of Tory voters have abandoned the progressive, politically correct, modernising Tories and why UKIP won in Clacton.

Chuka has withdraw from the leadership race.

Don't automatically make assumptions.

www.theguardian.com/society/2004/jun/14/localgovernment.politics

And I think UKIP have a policy that they will not accept any form BNP members.

'Chuka has withdraw from the leadership race.'

Blimey. Why?

His statement talks about the impact of being a candidate, and how the scrutiny is much more than he expected and how he does not want to live with that.

One commentator has already commented about the possibility of their being a skeleton in his closet.

Other theories are that following his tour of constituencies lost, he's become so pessimistic about a Labour in the short term he doesn't want to be linked to a hopeless situation.

And the other is that he's decided (or been persuaded) that it would be better for him to run as London Mayor.

From The Guardian website:

"Here is the key passage from the statement announcing his decision:

"As a member of the Shadow Cabinet, I am used to a level of attention which is part and parcel of the job. I witnessed the 2010 leadership election process close up and thought I would be comfortable with what it involved.

"However since the night of our defeat last week I have been subject to the added level of pressure that comes with being a leadership candidate.

"I have not found it to be a comfortable experience.

"One can imagine what running for leader can be like, understand its demands and the attention but nothing compares to actually doing it and the impact on the rest of one’s life.

"Consequently after further reflection I am withdrawing my candidacy.

"I apologise to all those who have kindly supported and encouraged me to do this and for disappointing them. I know this will come as I surprise to many but I had always wondered whether it was all too soon for me to launch this leadership bid - I fear it was."

Just I said it was an easy assumption but not a fair one. So just to clarify, I'm not making that assumption at all.

On the other topic here, I'm glad that Chuka has withdrawn. I would have never voted for him. Not that I'm particularly enamoured with any of the others yet either. Sigh.

Apparently some press contacted an elderly relative of either him or his partner and he wasn't happy with that level of intrusion.

Smart move, he calls the press out for door stepping at Centurion. He gets to run again for leader later.

Very good understanding of Tory and UKIP voters by Suzanne Moore in the Guardian. She misses out political correctness, but that is just another factor in control by an elite over the people.

"If anyone wants to listen to the so-called “shy Tories”, what you will often hear is not talk of aspiration but a desire to be left alone by the state – even a deep suspicion of it. This contradiction for anyone on the left has long been apparent. Imagining that all good reform comes from the state and everything bad from outside just does not correspond to people’s lived experience.

Class solidarity cannot be imposed from the outside. As core Labour votes go to Ukip or the SNP, the metropolitan left tells us consistently that nationalism is not a concept worth organising around, but then has a kind of Syriza-in-Surrey fantasy.

I am not so sure. And I am only a bit English, but again I think of my flag-waving mother, who nursed my “uncle” when he had Aids, who was half of a mixed-race couple when that was much frowned upon. She believed that the Tories would enable her to do things and that Labour would stop her doing them. I called her stupid many times when I was a teenager. I had to get over myself. Now we all have to get over ourselves."

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/14/working-class-tories-are-not-just-turkeys-voting-for-christmas

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/15/labour-history-leadership

This is a good read for anyone who's interested

Very good article by Paul Mason

"Labour haven’t just failed to win – it’s worse than that"

Labour shadow ministers who sneered at the idea they might offer Proportional Representation to the Libdems, on the eve of the election, will now have to face the fact that only permanent coalition politics or electoral reform can give them a chance to rule in future.
...
But it’s no longer the class divide that’s most important. It is the emergence of Scottish nationalism and the protective reaction it’s produced in England. And quite how a new Blair would reach out to the Ukip voters, the very people Blairism assumed would always vote Labour, is not clear. In addition, an overt Blairite candidate has no chance of running the party without the biggest union, Unite, leaving.
...
Labour today is waking up to something much worse than failure to win. It has failed to account for its defeat in 2010, failed to recognise the deep sources of its failure in Scotland, and failed to produce any kind of intellectual diversity and resilience from which answers might arise.

blogs.channel4.com/paul-mason-blog/labour-failed-win-worse/3671

The problem is groupthink because all of Labour's leadership is from the same group, the same metropolitan milieu, the same Oxbridge colleges. They all think the same, they all sound the same, they are out of touch with the people and the people don't think the same as them and want something different.

We need a John Smith. Sadly I think he was unique.

Yes, John Smith was very good. He had real principles. I don't think the metropolitan elite would like a John Smith in the future because a principled person cannot be told what to do.

"Tony Blair predicted John Smith's early death

Tony Blair predicted to his wife that John Smith would die prematurely and he would win the race to become the next Labour leader, not Gordon Brown.

He made the “strange” statement during a stay in a French hotel with his family in April 2004, the month before Mr Smith suffered a fatal heart attack,

Mr Blair woke his wife, Cherie, one morning and told her: “If John dies, I will be leader, not Gordon. And somehow, I think this will happen. I just think it will.”

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/tony-blair/7976017/Tony-Blair-predicted-John-Smiths-early-death.html

Well respected because he respected everyone. Capable of seeing the need for change but not demonising people along those way. Yes, I think now more than ever his loss is felt.

I like Jon Cruddas, he is one of the few good thinkers Labour have got. He writes in today's Observer.

"Jon Cruddas: this could be the greatest crisis the Labour party has ever faced

"One shadow cabinet member said: “It’s awful. There is no one there I can vote for. There is no route out of this. It is a fucking disaster.”
...
Writing on Observer.co.uk, Straw says Labour lost working-class voters to Ukip and was complacent in thinking that Nigel Farage’s party would damage the Tories most. “If we want to win back power, we will need to reach far beyond our metropolitan areas,” he says. “We need to think deeper about why we seem out of touch to so many and understand the demands of cultural anxiety as well as economic prosperity.”
...
Michael Dugher, MP for Barnsley East, who had served as a parliamentary aide to Miliband, is scathing about Labour’s lack of awareness about the party’s failings in its heartlands. “Tactically we were too slow in saying ‘no deals with the SNP’, and in any case no one believed us. And strategically too many people at the top were in denial about the threat posed to Labour by Ukip. They didn’t get it. When you look back, there is a sort of political genius in being able to lose the Scots and terrify the English all at the same time. And that’s before you look at how badly we did in Wales. It was a great campaign except for in Scotland, England and Wales …”

www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/16/labour-great-crisis-ever

I don't think Labour are totally finished, because the Establishment needs two parties so that when the public get fed up of one side of the Establishment, the other side can take over.

But the fact that the Labour party leadership election contains no real left wing voices shows what a sham it all is. There is no aternative - Establishment or nothing.

I am starting to believe it is a game and that some people at the top of Labour wanted to lose - the Edstone is just too daft to be true.

Here is Russell Brand, who can say truths that others are not allowed to say, on the whole spectacle, show, artifice and spin of the Establishment circus.

Good article by Labour's Geoff Hoon. He says that with UKIP taking the unskilled working class vote, Labour has no option left but to try and appeal to the middle. I personally think that means that Labour are finished because the middle will nearly always prefer Conservative to Labour. Hoon almost admits that Labour can't do anything for the unskilled working class, it can't help them apart from "education". But that is like waiting for Godot. Labour has no answers so it has to move to the middle. But the middle is overcrowded and Labour is still seen by the middle as left.

"Look behind you: Ukip could do yet more damage to Labour
...
And that is why the next Labour Leader has no choice about appealing to the middle ground. It is difficult to see how Labour could adjust its principles to appeal to some of the most conservative, nationalist views around. It is also difficult to see what economic policies can fundamentally change the economic position of the unskilled. In the modern economy the unskilled are virtually unemployable. Labour has no choice other than to go on highlighting the importance of education and training. That is the only way out of the problem – but in truth the percentage leaving school without any qualifications at all has remained stubbornly unaffected by successive initiatives from all governments.

The real nightmare for the next Labour Leader is that the Tories continue to push their centre ground appeal to the skilled working class and that increasingly for the unskilled Ukip becomes the party of choice. If Tory voters in safe Labour seats recognise that and start to vote tactically, Labour would be in even bigger trouble than it is in today."

www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/05/look-behind-you-ukip-could-do-yet-more-damage-labour

Claig. Geoff Hoon comment that the Labour party are in serious trouble is a "understatement". Regarding the UKIP/Conservative threat.

Look at this with tactical voting between UKIP/Conservative the Conservative's would have won "Scunthorpe" Labour 41.7 Cons 33.2 UKIP 17.1% . UKIP equally would have won Heywood if the Tories had backed UKIP Labour 43.1/ UKIP 32.2 Cons 19.1.

The serious problem is even in very traditional Labour areas there is a centre right block of 50% or more.

This is disregarding two facts 1st Labour will need to take 46 Conservative seats just to be the biggest party the 2nd and even more damaging is that if with the Boundaries and seat changes Labour will lose 24 Seats to the Conservatives 9.

This effectively takes Labour down to just 209 seats Conservatives could lose 21 seats and still have a majority in a slimmed down parliament.

Scotland is lost for everybody and will be independent within 10 years anyway!

Claig ..... re your "I personally think that means that Labour are finished" and your abilities in reading the politics runes.

Labour should rejoice as your call is excellent news, as around a year ago you were saying the same about the Conservative Party, daily - and mainly because David Cameron "the modernizer" had a mini wind turbine attached to his roof and didn't get his top off and sit on horses like Putin, if memory serves.

The Conservatives won't need to push to the centre ground, as close to the elimination of the Budget Deficit, their ability to spend a lot more money on social etc projects, will automatically appear to take them there.

The core Labour voter will never vote Conservative as 'the anti' is stamped through them like a stick of Blackpool rock, but I agree with you, Len McClusky last year, and Miliband's pre election feeble efforts to appeal - and Andy Burnham's switch saying he wants an early Referendum vote, UKIP could pick up those votes.

As to Tory voters in safe Labour seats tactically voting for UKIP, sod that, better the Labour-devil-you-know, than Farage and co show boating like the SNP novices, squatting on parliamentary seats etc to get on the cameras. IMO.

ISIT. Why would you prefer Labour MPs to UKIP ones !.

Interesting stats, sunshield.
Isit is a moderniser and therefore prefers Labour to UKIP.

'David Cameron "the modernizer" had a mini wind turbine attached to his roof '

Yes, my predictiions were on course until Cameron removed the rooftop wind turbine.

"Conservative leader David Cameron has had to remove his wind turbine from his west London home's roof because it was put up in the wrong place.
Builders only attached it to a wall last week but planning permission specified that it must be put on a nearby chimney stack.

Now builders have taken it down before Kensington and Chelsea Borough Council could pursue any enforcement action.

Some neighbours had objected to the turbine saying it was an eyesore."

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6505807.stm

Sunshield …. With Labour, while I might not agree with their policies/record, I’m a great believer in knowing what a political party STANDS for, their core policies (from which they’ll add and subtract others over time), and that does not have to take decades to establish.
Over the last parliament while Labour opposed everything the coalition was trying to do for their own self serving ends, everyone knew their core policies/platform remained the same.

UKIP was different as although everyone knew their core polices on the EU/immigration, as far as UK domestic policies were concerned, they were a relative blank canvass after 20-years, even coming into the 2010 General Election.

news.sky.com/story/1200525/nigel-farage-disowns-ukip-manifesto-as-drivel
”UKIP leader Nigel Farage has disowned the party's entire (2010) general election manifesto - which he helped launch - branding it "drivel”.

But then UKIP under Farage as leader, used the lack of consistent domestic policies platform to run a campaign of inter main party opportunism, adopting and discarding populist policies/votes as better explained by the link below – for which they were rewarded with many handsomely paid MEPs within a European Parliament they hated, yet the UK needed to work with while ‘in’.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/01/ukip-british-political-compass-authoritarian-right
“Rather, as I've explained before, Ukip flagrantly pilfers the most unpopular policies from both Labour and the Conservatives and frames them in a negative manner, making its manifesto a "bucket list" for the annoyed and offering easy, uncosted solutions. Scared of immigrants? Vote Ukip. Insecure about the financial crisis? Vote Ukip. Hate the smoking ban, energy companies, HS2, Brussels, travellers, burqas, tax, Boris, debt, wind farms, bankers, quangos, foreign aid, crime, Abu Qatada, tuition fees, lazy people, Muslims, foreigners, the hunting ban? Vote Ukip.”

Furthermore, as a UKIP looked to appeal to a more widespread selection of voters e.g. lose their BNP type reputation; they went further than any other party to erase their history/issues they previously stood for.

www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-15/u-k-parties-prepare-for-2015-by-erasing-web-histories.html
“UKIP spokesman Michael Heaver confirmed that the party’s 2010 election manifesto had been removed. While the party now opposes the planned high-speed north-south rail line, the 2010 document advocated building three new routes. “We’re in the process of updating everything,” Heaver said by telephone. “We’re going through a policy review.”

In conclusion; I’m against any party of chameleons or ‘changelings’ with no core UK domestic policies that pick ‘n mix populist policies between elections, yet disingenuously calls that lack of a credible platform as the ‘change’ the UK needs – even as a protest vote, as there are more honest political parties out there.

Clever, funny article in the Guardian in a scenario in the year 2025, and an obituary to the Labour Party and how it declined.

"Perhaps mirroring the party’s diminishing patience, the people in charge sported ever-shorter names: Tristram, Stella, Dan.Throughout, the diminishing membership displayed their traditional contemptuous loyalty to whoever happened to be in charge. By Labour’s last election of May 2025, its much-trumpeted difference with the Tory perma-government came down to this: our PPE graduates are smarter than your PPE graduates.
...
Labour, the party of collective politics, now represented a collection of niche electorates.

That one fact glared out of the results of the 2015 election. Multicultural London became more Labour, even while university towns and Guardianista strongholds began flirting with the Greens– a trend which was only to continue over the next two general elections. Meanwhile, across the de-industrialised north, Nigel Farage robbed votes from Miliband. “It suddenly became clear that Labour no longer had just one enemy – the Tories,” remembers Glen O’Hara, professor of history at Oxford Brookes university. “It had a whole kaleidoscope of enemies – from UKIP to the SNP.”

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/11/obituary-labour-party-roots-2025

As a lifelong labour supporter until now, I voted Tory to keep out any Labour government having its strings pulled by the horrible SNP.

Isitmebut
I’m against any party of chameleons or ‘changelings’ with no core UK domestic policies that pick ‘n mix populist policies between elections, yet disingenuously calls that lack of a credible platform as the ‘change’ the UK needs – even as a protest vote, as there are more honest political parties out there.

I share your assessment of UKIP. A party with 'pop up' policies. All window display and an empty shop.

anothersplace
As a lifelong labour supporter until now, I voted Tory to keep out any Labour government having its strings pulled by the horrible SNP.

A successful Tory campaign, then. You responded to one of the Tory's key pieces of propaganda.

claig
Clever, funny article in the Guardian in a scenario in the year 2025, and an obituary to the Labour Party and how it declined.

I thought it was dull and unimaginative; one of many articles offering unoriginal criticism and nothing constructive.