How to win back the south.

It's a fact that Labour did awful in the south in the 2010 election.
Liam Byrne, of whom i'm a big fan, has some harsh facts. Some others have been added:
At the 2010 general election, Labour suffered its worst losses in the south and middle of England, winning just 49 out of 302 seats in those regions. Choose your route carefully, says Liam Byrne, a former Treasury minister, and you can drive from Edmonton in north London to the banks of the Humber at Grimsby before hitting a Labour seat. After this wipeout, Policy Network, a think-tank, commissioned a poll of southern voters. It found they trusted the Conservatives to run the economy by a margin of 44% to 16% over Labour. Most damningly, 47% of southerners thought public spending under Labour had been largely wasted. Such voters no longer see Labour as “fair” to working families, calling it a party for benefit claimants, unions and immigrants.

And that's a problem. Of course, these people tend to read the tabloids, which have these very headlines and stories every day and, as far as i'm concerned are not always tight with the truth.
But that's the story people believe, even if I don't. My mum, dyed in the wool Thatcherite, even believes that hospitals and the like are much, much better under Labour and that the money was well spent. Far, far too few agree with her for us (Labour) to win the kind of southern voters we need to form a government.


The crunchiest debates in Manchester involved the survivors of Labour’s southern wipeout. In fringe meetings far from the fuchsia-pink main stage they shared tales of doorstep rage from voters convinced that Labour largesse had passed them by. Mr Byrne, a Birmingham MP, quoted couples who told him they worked crushing hours, paid their dues, but earned just too much to receive state help—then pointed with rage to feckless neighbours “doing nothing and getting everything”. Such voters feel they are the victims of overlapping systems of selfishness, said Mr Byrne: above them, bankers and politicians looking after themselves; below them the work-shy or newly arrived immigrants tapping benefits. Fiona Mactaggart, a formidable Scot who represents Slough—one of Labour’s tiny clutch of Home Counties seats—put it pithily: voters thought Labour stood for “taking their money and giving it to people who are taking the piss”.

Ed Miliband says he gets it, but does he? And will people believe him. I always think it's better to avoid sayings like 'I get it' and make statements which show it.

half funny small mercies

Small mercies
23. Homophobic Home Secretary.
24. National Insurance Rise on workers but not business
25. Liberal Democrats are touting their willful refusal to learn from New Labour's mistakes as a virtue.

20. They're not Ukip
21. They're not the BNP
22. Thatch, Tebbit and Lamont are long gone

37. There'll be no waiting for operations once all the elderly proles have died through the winter, after Dave cancels all the winter fuel payments and freezes their state pensions.

'At least they're easy to laugh at'
Since ca. 1979 they've been no laughing matter whatsoever - as millions would be all too able to tell you from bitter experience. Former Junior Health Minister Edwina Currie sums up the sort of innate sublimated nastiness lurking within every Tory's inner core:
In September 1986, she became a Junior Health Minister. Among her comments over the next two years were, despite being not religious, saying that "Good Christian people" don't get AIDS, telling old people who couldn't afford their heating bills that they should wrap up warm in winter, and telling northerners that they die of "Ignorance and chips'
Let's not be fooled. The self-proclaimed 'Nasty Party' is still very much in business.

Gordon Brown told it's time to go as hopes fade for deal with Lib Dems

"That is leading a growing body of older ministers to argue that Labour should now recognise this is a good election to lose, relinquish power and regroup with dignity.

A clutch of former senior ministers including David Blunkett, the former home secretary, George Howarth the former Home Office minister, and Malcolm Wicks, the former energy secretary, were arguing that it is best for Labour to admit defeat, hold a leadership election and come back to crush a Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition of convenience at the next election.

In a foretaste of the attack Labour will mount on the Liberal Democrats, Blunkett said: "We're going to have, by the look of it, a coalition government with a Liberal Democrat partner that doesn't believe one word of the Tories on Europe, doesn't believe in the Tories' economic policy and has considerable doubts about their approach in terms of taxation, not least in terms of inheritance tax, but is having to go in with the Conservatives in order to gain power.""

I agree entirely. Let's accept that we've lost and stand ready to win next time, when we will probably be able to command the 'progressive vote' completely as the lib dems will be tainted by Tory association.
However, the lib dems may then be seen as a credible and pragmatic party which will probably work to their advantage.
But that doesn't matter as Labour lost 90 seats so should stand aside.

a progressive alliance

Alex Salmond is calling on the Lib Dems to join a 'progressive alliance' with Scottish National Party, Plaid Cymru and Labour.
firstly, Clegg said he'd do a deal with the largest party, so he should.
second, the nationalists have acted disgracefully before the election trying to hold the country to ransom by selling their support to the highest bidder. this would give disproportionate power to minority parties, and thus is far from progressive.

"If Labour and the Lib Dems joined forces - the extra 57 votes are not enough to make them the biggest force even with the support of the Northern Irish SDLP (who sat on the government benches in the last parliament) and the one new Alliance MP who is allied to the Lib Dems. Together that's 319 votes.

With the support of the nationalists from Scotland and Wales they would reach 330.

If the DUP joined too and the independent unionist and the new Green MP this alliance would have 338 votes in the Commons."

just doesn't seem right to me because they're trying to marginalise the largest party. if Labour and Lib Dems each had more seats, say they were able to get a majority with just those two, and they'd given some assurances before the vote, then that would probably be enough for me.
i still find it odd that i'm saying the Tories should be in power, but that's what people voted for.

blogger startled as internet comment post is found to be sensible and balanced

wow.
"

I wouldn't want to be Clegg. He finds himself wielding power with no mandate for it, which tends to slaughter his own sacred cows of electoral reform. If he chooses to prop up the Tories with just over a third of the vote, not only would the same principle be compromised, but he'd forever taint the Libdems as closet rightwingers who helped the hated Tories gain power after gaining tactical votes from those who wanted to keep them out.

If he worked with Labour, the democratic principle is once again compromised, but at least his progressive credentials remain intact, and he retains the possibility of future support from progressives. This might be his better option of the two, siince he could reasonably claim that the progressive vote outweighed the Conservative one, and that's what shaped his decision.

Realistically, he might be better refusing to work with either side. Whichever side he props up has no mandate, and he'll share in their fragility and in all likelihood get the public order of the boot next time around, along with the losing side he assisted."

good work that poster. think i need a lay down

a tory government

over the last couple of days i've found myself in the odd position of thinking we should have a Tory government.
they won the most votes, they won the most seats. They should be the government, end of.


getting more devious, it could work out quite well for Labour as the anti-Tory or leftist vote they currently share with the Lib Dems may be more concentrated on Labour after 4 years of a Lib Dem / Tory coalition government, either explicit or implicit.

Can't help but feel Cameron and Clegg are two peas from the same pod though

Roy Greenslade: The Sun recruits Simon Cowell to its pro-Tory campaign | Media | guardian.co.uk‏

"COR! what a bunch of tits! Thank you guardian, when can we expect more?
oh, on friday apparently, but not just tits, a whole bunch of toffee nosed arseholes.

Dear god

save us

please

you are our only hope!

or did you sell your soul to rupert too? (how much they paying you?)"


brilliant

tonight's debate

Cameron: change, change, change (empty words)
Clegg: the old parties, change, political point-scoring (empty words)
Brown: he won't answer the question (policy/"substance")

personally, i did actually think Gordy did well. he was obviously nervous, especially at first but fair play. it shows he's human as anyone would be shitting themselves given yesterday.
i'm biased, i think Labour have the arguements i most agree with. I've seen the Chancellor's debates and 2 leaders debates.
the thing is, i'm not like most people. i look most at policies while others don't. it does annoy me, but there you go. people are different.
i think Labour has got the best answers going forward. yes, they have been in power for 13 years and haven't made everything perfect, but they've made this country more the way i would like it to be and i think they should be entrusted to take us forwards

Old faultlines persist among parties on how to help poor through tax changes

Taking this as read should be one hell of a boost to Labour. On the richest and poorest their 'attack lines' are proven true. Their main worry could be the middle classes, but is anyone REALLY going to vote for a Lib Dem government? Hopefully not.
Overall, it almost reads like Labour propaganda, which should be great for Labour. The trouble is that weighty policy things like this may matter less than who's wife wears what and stupid things like that.
I just hope the public are smarter than the media give them credit for. Breath not held

Gordy and mrs Duffy

Fuck it, go on my son.
Give em hell

Election 2010: The Conservatives have a vision of 'big society'. But who has got time for DIY government? | Politics | The Guardian‏

I can't help that think this is Tory buck passing. Cutting back services, as seems inevitable, can then be blamed on the local people. poor quality services are someone else's fault, and the poor are poor because they deserve to be, while the rich are better than us.
It will take a lot of convincing to disavow me of that.
Tories slash and burn and leave people to their own means

who to vote for?

Who should you vote for? UK General Election quiz

Labour				57
Liberal Democrat				54
Green				41
UK Independence	-40
Conservative	-47

You expected: LAB

Your recommendation: Labour

Click here for more details about these results

What happens if Cameron loses? | Politics | The Guardian‏

The main worry being that Cameron winning is not the lesser of two evils, but the middle of three: best being Labour win, worst a further right Tory administration. So the worry is that Cameron doesn't win and then we get a David Davis/Liam Fox/Andrew Rosindale (God forbid) -lead administration who couldn't help but win. Of course, if we get a reverse Blair it won't be so bad i.e. a leader further to the political centre than their party who is pretty much indistinguishable from someone on the other side.

Evidence that this fear is well-founded can be found in this paragraph:
"On the influential Tory website ConservativeHome, some contributors are breathless with the shifting polls' implications. "There is a huge problem here," says Victor M. "If Tory HQ don't solve [it] as of now, we are doomed to five more years of the fat Scottish droner." David Alan says: "We are flatlining at around 36/37%. That is frankly a disaster. If we do win it's going to be as a minority government or with a very small majority. Either way Cameron will have a bust-up with [the] party soon after, so allowing Labour back in." Craig says: "Cameron is a bloody beauty queen but a disaster of a politician. We have been sold down the river by him. He can't beat Brown. We should get [Oliver] Letwin in now." Angry Womble replies: "It's already too late . . . David Davis would have made a better leader." Jacqui D says: "Let someone else take the plunge - Boris [Johnson] would have no such qualms.""

"Compared to most senior ministers in elderly governments, many of Brown's key allies are young. And many of them - Ed Miliband, Ed Balls, Yvette Cooper - are more left-of-centre than their Blairite predecessors; were Labour to continue in office, Cruddas expects them to continue to move cautiously in that direction. Judging by the budget's tax rises for rich property owners, Brown and Darling intend to do so as well."
An excellent point


"Yet governments that win an unexpected extra term tend not to end happily. Gould is mindful of what happened to Major after 1992: "If Labour won this time, would voters wake up the day after the election and say: 'God, five more years of Gordon Brown'? I think they would.""
My fear exactly

"I reckon the best thing the Labour party could do would be to subtly get the message out - officially denied of course - that if they win Gordon Brown will serve a limited period as prime minister before resigning in favour of Balls, Miliband etc.
He could waltz off into the sunset to lead the World Bank or the IMF having achieved his ambition of winning a general election.
Time to start planting some stories in the Guardian."
Now that IS an interesting possibility. Gordy would need to be dragged out kicking and screaming, he won't go and he'll take the whole party down with him. But if it could be achieved, it would probably benefit the party and the country. Even david Miliband replacing him, which doesn't exactly fill me with joy

A good election to lose? | Philippe Legrain | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk‏

I like the comment that the Tories have realised that already.

"While we do not have the benefit of hindsight, 2010 feels a lot like 1992. Most people are fed up with the government but unconvinced by the opposition. The ruling party has become too comfortable with power and often seems bereft of purpose. The prime minister is at best uninspiring, more often dismal. Most importantly, the economic outlook is unpromising - and there is a growing chance that a run on the pound will wreak havoc with the recovery and the government's plans. Even if catastrophe is avoided, running Britain in an age of austerity will be a thankless task, especially for politicians who believe in active government."
Very possibly.
I've been thinking this exact same thing for a while, so it's nice to know that I'm so far ahead of even radical thinking at the Guardian (job please).
Second-guessing history is a dangerous ploy at the best of times, but I think there is some water in what the author's going on about.
One other factor I'd like to throw in is that if the Cameron project fails it's very likely the Tories would turn to their right wing for their next leader, who after 18 years of Labour (mismanagement) rule could probably win if certifiably insane (maybe bring Maggie back).
So it's possible that Labour winning under Gordy will mean an ingrained hatred of Labour among voters with them resenting every minute of the 5 year term, then the Tory right getting to power within the party and winning an election it's impossible for them to loose.
On balance I'm glad of the range of possibilities the author touches on, but I'd agree with the general premise. British electoral history shows that few are the government parties that go on and on and on. In the 20th century the Tories allowed the others to keep the seat warm for a spell here and there but ruled overall. Labour's, and the country's, best hope for the future would be a similar thing with Labour as the ingrained party of rule, but with the odd other party taking turns in the high chair before reality kicks in again and the big boys come to clean up the mess.
I would prefer that the Tories never won power again, but they will, and this year may be Labour's best chance to limit the damage they will do

Tory policy‏

Very partisan I know, but:

I work in a government department. We had a meeting today about what happens when the election happens and we get a new government. Technically, even Labour being re-elected is a new government, I think.

Anyway, the point is that no-one in the door could name a single Tory policy in our area. That, sadly, says a lot about them

Why I'm backing the Lib Dems | John Kampfner | Comment is free | The Guardian‏

Yeah yeah yeah, blah blah blah.
The Lib Dems have moved significantly to the right under Clegg, their stupid and patronising attempts to get young people in board, and the Clegg-ite obsession with sound bites means they're far more the children of New Labour than the author wants to realise. And what he doesn't want to realise, he won't.
Labour is the party of the left, in part because Labour is the party than can get into office and get things done. It's easy for the Lib Dems to make promises, they're never doing to be tested on them in office. In this case, I believe in getting your hands dirty trying to change things from the inside rather than carping from the sidelines and maintaining your purity