Labours Lost Voters

[Ethan]

A very good summary Ethan but Corbyn will see the end of Labours chances of election. The reason the Tories get/got elected was that Gordon Brown and Ed Balls presided over the collapse of the economy and Ed Milliband was so clearly unelectable and that Cameron had turned the economy around, by enough, that the undecided voters wouldn't be swayed by the quite hopeless Milliband. They needed to move to policies that you call Torylite to even stand a chance of being electable.

Labour, to stand a chance of re election in the future need to have sound policies that won't bankrupt the nation, look after a more modernised, streamlined and waste cutting NHS, properly stop economic migration and look after the businesses that pay all our wages without burdening small businesses with red tape, fines for everything in the tax regime, and, ever increasing benefits that micro businesses can't afford.

Well, I am not sure Cameron turned the economy round. The world economies all recovered at greater or lesser speed, but unfortunately Cameron now believes his strategy worked, despite the fact that quite the opposite strategy was used in other countries, so he is doubling down, as they say in the US.

There is a valid argument about whether a better economic strategy would be to invest in infrastructure and parts of the economy that generate more jobs, more tax revenue and more money circulating in the system. Then you get a lot more of the micro-businesses you refer to. They pay people, who spend the money which pays others etc etc, all of whom pay tax. VAT on the stuff they buy. When you give money to the super-rich they stick it in the Caymans and it doesn't do anyone else any goof. Most serious economists like this approach better than austerity. No good business prospers just because they cut costs. That is a short term way of stopping the bleeding, but the business has to start to peopler invest, innovate and produce something in order to really get out. That is where the UK is now. The Tories sold this idea that the deficit/national debt is akin to a families bank account. Osborne and anyone with half a brain knows that it isn't like that at all. The UK is not like Greece which has nothing more than tourism and farming. It won't go bankrupt unless the Tories continue to sell off every asset left to their private investor and party donor friends. Just as the Greeks are being forced to do, so the hole they are in is actually getting deeper.

The issue with the NHS isn't clinical waste in prescribing and missed appointments, it is billions wasted in costly and economically insane PFI schemes, pseudo-marketisation and management consultancy.

 

[delc]

Politicians of all colours seem to be forgetting the Keynesian truth that workers are also consumers. Austerity measures and continually pushing down wages doesn't really help. There are only so many rich foreigners we can sell things to!

 

[chrisd]

I was mainly referring to the way many voters looked at the election, and many took the view, IMO, that Cameron had turned things round etc etc and that was enough to put an X in Tory, most aren't interested in the detail just as many Labour voters do so "because my parents and their parents always have". If things felt better then that's good to secure a second term, especially against a Labour Party devoid of ideas and lead by an unelectable no hoper

I don't disagree with your economics but if I remember rightly it was the Labour Party who bought in PFI's and we've certainly paid the cost of that blunder

 

[delc]

I was mainly referring to the way many voters looked at the election, and many took the view, IMO, that Cameron had turned things round etc etc and that was enough to put an X in Tory, most aren't interested in the detail just as many Labour voters do so "because my parents and their parents always have". If things felt better then that's good to secure a second term, especially against a Labour Party devoid of ideas and lead by an unelectable no hoper

I don't disagree with your economics but if I remember rightly it was the Labour Party who bought in PFI's and we've certainly paid the cost of that blunder

PFI's enabled Tony Blair and Co to boast about how many new hospitals they had built. We will be paying the costs of them for many years to come!

 

[chrisd]

PFI's enabled Tony Blair and Co to boast about how many new hospitals they had built. We will be paying the costs of them for many years to come!

A very high price indeed but there are millions of voters out there who know nothing about them and the damaging effect on the current economy

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

A very high price indeed but there are millions of voters out there who know nothing about them and the damaging effect on the current economy

A high price I agree - but surely that is to do with the ludicrous terms that were agreed with the PFI partners - the need in 1997 for improving the infrastructure - including our hospitals - was obvious (though as Ethan says you do wonder about the rationale behind some of the schemes). Anyway - it's just as well the Tories don't have to find the money to fund such improvements today.

 

[chrisd]

Anyway - it's just as well the Tories don't have to find the money to fund such improvements today.

But they do have to find the money to fund such improvements yesterday

 

[DCB]

Well, last year I had the misfortune to be in three of Edinburghs hospitals as i was treated after my accident. I started off in an all singing all dancing PFI hospital. Nice, airy, bright, modern. Was operated on in an early 1960s unit in another hospital, tired, dated but functional and underwent my rehab in a much older hospital in a unit built in the 1950s. It did show it's age.

I'll take a PFI hospital any day of the week folks. What we need is a health service that can do something to invest and turn these older units into something comparable with a modern PFI site. This is 2015 and we are still trying to treat people in units that were built almost 100 years ago. The governments of this country need to stop squabling and picking on what the other lot did in the past and they need to look to the future and plan out a pat to upgrade all our facilities to meed the modern demand. Yes it'll cost, but it needs to be done.

 

[delc]

A high price I agree - but surely that is to do with the ludicrous terms that were agreed with the PFI partners - the need in 1997 for improving the infrastructure - including our hospitals - was obvious (though as Ethan says you do wonder about the rationale behind some of the schemes). Anyway - it's just as well the Tories don't have to find the money to fund such improvements today.

The Labour Party are noted for their lack of common sense when it comes to financial negotiations. I guess that this is because few of their politicians have ever lived in the real world. Typical examples includes Doctors' pay, which is why you can't now see one at weekends, and Gordon Brown selling off our Gold reserves in one lump at a rock bottom price!

 

[Hacker Khan]

The Labour Party are noted for their lack of common sense when it comes to financial negotiations. I guess that this is because few of their politicians have ever lived in the real world. Typical examples includes Doctors' pay, which is why you can't now see one at weekends, and Gordon Brown selling off our Gold reserves in one lump at a rock bottom price!

That's a matter of opinion. And others are available, like this one from that famous left leading paper that knows nothing about finances and the economy, The Morning Star http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5788dbac-7680-11e0-b05b-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3fwtWyCd3

 

[SocketRocket]

Well, I am not sure Cameron turned the economy round. The world economies all recovered at greater or lesser speed, but unfortunately Cameron now believes his strategy worked, despite the fact that quite the opposite strategy was used in other countries, so he is doubling down, as they say in the US.

We had the highest growth and recovery in the EU.

 

[delc]

That's a matter of opinion. And others are available, like this one from that famous left leading paper that knows nothing about finances and the economy, The Morning Star http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5788dbac-7680-11e0-b05b-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3fwtWyCd3

I would have thought that even a cretin like Brown would understand that if you dump a lot of a commodity on the market at one time it will lower the market price!

 

[Ethan]

Well, last year I had the misfortune to be in three of Edinburghs hospitals as i was treated after my accident. I started off in an all singing all dancing PFI hospital. Nice, airy, bright, modern. Was operated on in an early 1960s unit in another hospital, tired, dated but functional and underwent my rehab in a much older hospital in a unit built in the 1950s. It did show it's age.

I'll take a PFI hospital any day of the week folks. What we need is a health service that can do something to invest and turn these older units into something comparable with a modern PFI site. This is 2015 and we are still trying to treat people in units that were built almost 100 years ago. The governments of this country need to stop squabling and picking on what the other lot did in the past and they need to look to the future and plan out a pat to upgrade all our facilities to meed the modern demand. Yes it'll cost, but it needs to be done.

So you are saying you like a shiny new hospital over an old dilapidated one. Who wouldn't?

The question is why can't the NHS build such hospitals using public money. That would create employment rather than profits which go offshore and would be much cheaper in the long run.

PFI is very expensive. The financiers often sell the contracts at massive profit because they are a license to print money. Maintenance contracts are punitive as well. And at the end of the contract the financiers can kick you out, or more likely renegotiate terms to screw the NHS even more.

 

[Foxholer]

People may agree with Corbyn or hate his views, but at least they can probably agree that he stands for something and his positions and policies are pretty clear. Liz Kendall is also pretty clear too - she is a Tory in Labour clothing, but the other two seem willing to pivot or slide around to what is politically expedient, and illustrate what many hate about modern politicians. They stand for nothing and move according to the wind of public opinion and the main media players.

I joined Labour as a registered supporter purely to vote for Corbyn in the forthcoming election. I see nothing wrong with a candidate who is traditional Labour, supports the NHS, the working classes, a strong welfare state and who seeks to restrain the out of control private companies and big money interests who currently fund the Tory party. The mistake Labour made was to believe that the public supported a move to the centre under Blair. They didn't. They (and initially I) bought into a cult of personality but as soon as he showed his true colours, support started to wane until they reached the depths under Moribund. But they still think that the public wants them to stay in the centre, in a sort of Tory-lite place. I don't believe that, but they have allowed Tories to set the narrative for recent elections, and that narrative is about Europe, immigrants and welfare recipients both being evil and austerity, and they have forgotten small stuff like the NHS, education, and getting more decent well paying jobs. Labour don't even know where they stand on austerity. Pretty much every credible economist in the western world knows where to stand on it - against it, but Labour are frightened and incapable of taking the issue on because they are driven by focus groups, opinion polls and media opinion.

I think they need to hit Ctrl-Alt-Del and start over again. Find some principles and ideals in line with their natural constituency and build a credible narrative around those. Don't let the Tories set the terms of the debate, stick to their principles and it can't possibly take them anyplace worse than where they currently are.

On the voter numbers, in 1979, Thatcher got 13.67 million votes against 11.33 million in 2015. They won both times, obviously. The difference between now and then is that overall turnout is lower, and there are more than 2 parties getting decent shares of the vote. In 1979 only 3 parties got more than 1 million vote, Liberals in 3rd place. In 2015, 6 parties got more than a million votes.

Great and all as those ideals are, I'm afraid Blair (who I detest) got it right about getting into power being more important than preaching the traditional (and frequently quite reasonable imo) Labour views to the electorate in the hope of converting the swing voters! Imo, Kinnoch was the last of the 'traditional' Labour leaders (even though he was pretty much a moderate/centre left) and the fact that he failed to win against a ridiculously weak Tory campaign in 1992 was really the last straw for that style of approach imo!

I never thought Miliband was electable (quite the opposite in fact) but the Union bloc backed him ahead of his, far more effective imo, brother!

UK Politics is now driven so much by 'the Leader' that is essential to have one that the public can accept! None of the candidates for leader of Scottish Labour stand out in this regard! And the same is quite possibly true for England as well!

 

[Hacker Khan]

Great and all as those ideals are, I'm afraid Blair (who I detest) got it right about getting into power being more important than preaching the traditional (and frequently quite reasonable imo) Labour views to the electorate in the hope of converting the swing voters! Imo, Kinnoch was the last of the 'traditional' Labour leaders (even though he was pretty much a moderate/centre left) and the fact that he failed to win against a ridiculously weak Tory campaign in 1992 was really the last straw for that style of approach imo!

I never thought Miliband was electable (quite the opposite in fact) but the Union bloc backed him ahead of his, far more effective imo, brother!

UK Politics is now driven so much by 'the Leader' that is essential to have one that the public can accept! None of the candidates for leader of Scottish Labour stand out in this regard! And the same is quite possibly true for England as well!

Some very fair points made there. If they'd have chosen David over Ed then British politics would be in a very different place. And much as I admire a leader with principals, if Labour just chose another trade union endorsed candidate with little appeal to middle England then it will play straight into the Tories hands, they will exploit it to the hilt and it will allow them to swing even further to the right.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

...

I joined Labour as a registered supporter purely to vote for Corbyn in the forthcoming election. I see nothing wrong with a candidate who is traditional Labour, supports the NHS, the working classes, a strong welfare state and who seeks to restrain the out of control private companies and big money interests who currently fund the Tory party. The mistake Labour made was to believe that the public supported a move to the centre under Blair. They didn't. They (and initially I) bought into a cult of personality but as soon as he showed his true colours, support started to wane until they reached the depths under Moribund. But they still think that the public wants them to stay in the centre, in a sort of Tory-lite place. I don't believe that, but they have allowed Tories to set the narrative for recent elections, and that narrative is about Europe, immigrants and welfare recipients both being evil and austerity, and they have forgotten small stuff like the NHS, education, and getting more decent well paying jobs. Labour don't even know where they stand on austerity. Pretty much every credible economist in the western world knows where to stand on it - against it, but Labour are frightened and incapable of taking the issue on because they are driven by focus groups, opinion polls and media opinion.

I think they need to hit Ctrl-Alt-Del and start over again. Find some principles and ideals in line with their natural constituency and build a credible narrative around those. Don't let the Tories set the terms of the debate, stick to their principles and it can't possibly take them anyplace worse than where they currently are...

BiB - I liked Mhairi Black on her observations on the Labour Party and quoting Tony Benn in her maiden speech (which was not at all bad btw) - when she said that in politics there are weathercocks and signposts. I need a Labour Party of signposts rather than the one that we seem to be heading towards - one that spins in whatever direction public opinion may blow it.

https://www.facebook.com/Channel4News/videos/vb.6622931938/10153075784641939/?type=2&theater

 

[DCB]

So you are saying you like a shiny new hospital over an old dilapidated one. Who wouldn't?

The question is why can't the NHS build such hospitals using public money. That would create employment rather than profits which go offshore and would be much cheaper in the long run.

PFI is very expensive. The financiers often sell the contracts at massive profit because they are a license to print money. Maintenance contracts are punitive as well. And at the end of the contract the financiers can kick you out, or more likely renegotiate terms to screw the NHS even more.

Totally agree with what you say, but, we went through far too long a period without serious investment which meant that it was too costly to do even simple lifecycle upgrades to the existing estate never mind rebuilding new hospitals etc. PFI was seen as a way round the problem. It only created a new problem. Focus on sensible, planned expenditure has to be the goal to provide facilities suitable for 2015 and beyond. PFI was a kneejerk reaction.

That said, our local hospital infrastructure was changed with the opening of a PFI hospital. If that hadn't happened, we'd still be going to old victorian sites for treatment.

 

[SocketRocket]

Putting Corbyn at the head of the Labour party would be repeating the mistake of Michael Foot.

 

[CheltenhamHacker]

BiB - I liked Mhairi Black on her observations on the Labour Party and quoting Tony Benn in her maiden speech (which was not at all bad btw) - when she said that in politics there are weathercocks and signposts. I need a Labour Party of signposts rather than the one that we seem to be heading towards - one that spins in whatever direction public opinion may blow it.

https://www.facebook.com/Channel4News/videos/vb.6622931938/10153075784641939/?type=2&theater

Shock horror, SILH liking someone Scottish

 

[MegaSteve]

Putting Corbyn at the head of the Labour party would be repeating the mistake of Michael Foot.

Trying to "boss the centre ground" hasn't done them many favours either...

There's plenty of support for Labour out there... Just need to persuade them out of their cosy living rooms on polling day...
Perhaps a battle cry from the leftside might be what is needed... Plus being even more tee'd off with austerity measures another five years down the line...