2015 UK General Election campaign & aftermath discussion thread.

that chuka umunna article is embarrassing, what a dire communicator - there's enough there to assume he can never be a success, harsh as that may sound. like that's a pretty big moment for him, laying down the gauntlet like this, and he has no clear vision whatsoever. it's just a rambling screed, he writes like someone who lost something irreplaceable at his 1000th four-hour westminster meeting.

it's time to confront things, which in retrospect, we should have done years ago

bad grammar cliche time machine.

That’s why I’ve always argued you cannot be pro-business by beating up on the terms and conditions of their workers and the trade unions that play an important role representing them

i don't know what he means here. i don't understand what this thing he has always argued is.

And sometimes we made it sound like we saw taxing people as a good in itself, rather than a means to an end.

taxing people is a bad!

we should have been the ones championing a smart, efficient public sector that uses technology, co-operative and mutual principles and a pragmatic “what works” approach to get things done.

definitely need more what worksism in government.

he direction we need to taketo rebuild is clear. We must stop looking to the past and focus on ensuring everyone has a stake in the future. Our vision as a party must start with the aspirations of voters: to get on and up in the world, to see their children and grandchildren do better than they did, to get that better job, to move from renting to owning, to take the family on holiday, to move from that flat to that house with a garden. That means offering competence, optimism not fatalism, an end to machine politics, an economic credo that is both pro-worker and pro-business and, most of all, a politics that starts with what unites us as a country rather than what divides us.

sounds really clear. twirling always twirling toward freedom.

He's just not very intelligent, that's his main problem.

new vision from Tristram Hunt

Labour need to show they are also on the side of families who want to shop at John Lewis, go on holiday and get a new extension.

seats that changed hands

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CEpgwMQWMAATE9h.png

naive question: why did it not occur to the lib dems to break the coalition at any point over the past five years

i mean i guess the answer is, 'because they thought doing so would damage them more with the electorate than seeing it out,' but that seems ludicrous. alternatively i guess 'huge numbers of people who might have been involved with that decision had stopped giving a fuck'

maybe over the next five years we'll come to realise how remarkable a moderating force in the coalition they were

The lib dems didn't see this coming. As recently as a couple of weeks ago, Vince Cable was saying that one of the deals for a new Tory/Lib Dem coalition would include him being Chancellor.

Sounds ridiculous now.

Chukka Ummuna's article is basically "Let me be clear here, we wish to be all things to all people"

"I will listen to every single voter, and I will say 'I agree'"

lord help us all

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/09/labour-left-miliband-hating-english

Contrary to what the traffic police tell you, careful driving does not always save lives. Until the moment he careered into the electorate, Ed Miliband was a safe pair of hands. He kept Labour quiet, and hid its divisions. The splits between left and right, which came close to destroying the party when it went into opposition in the 1930s, 1950s and 1980s, did not happen under his leadership. Everything seemed calm. But as his career ends – and what, he may think as he looks back, was the point of all that? – the quiet that Miliband brought looks like the quiet of the grave.

His rule – if that is not too grand a term for so small a thing – was marked by dishonesty in the Labour party and the wider left. The unwillingness to accept uncomfortable truths, and confront comfortable prejudices has done for the British left, or at least that part of it that organises around the Labour movement.

The biggest failure of understanding is the most paradoxical. Labour and the left do not take the right seriously. They dismiss its leaders as greedy fat cats and public school toffs, and do not grasp how formidable they have become. A friend made the point when he told me that at 8.30am on Friday, when Ed Balls lost his seat, the trading floor at Credit Suisse at Canary Wharf erupted with cheers. I don’t doubt there were similar yelps of delight on every other trading floor in the City.

In other words, the power of one of the world’s great trading centres is behind the Tory party. The power is manifest not just in campaign donations, but in the arrogance of financial capitalists, who never allow any number of market failures to dent their self-confidence or the self-confidence of their political allies. If you are going to take them on, you need to be good. In fact, you need to be brilliant.

Yet for the past two elections Labour has stuck with leaders it knew the public thought were useless. It allowed itself to be led by men who were acceptable to Unite and what’s left of the rest of the trade union movement, rather than the public, and did not even try to throw them out when they could see the voters weren’t listening to them.

If this sounds like an appeal for a return to Blairism, it is worth remembering that, since 10 October 1974, no Labour leader apart from Tony Blair has won a general election. And Blair didn’t win by sticking to familiar promises to protect the NHS and welfare state – voters know Labour wants to do both – or by appealing only to public-sector workers and favoured minorities, but by convincing the broad mass of voters he could also protect what limited wealth they enjoyed.

But to say bring back Blairism, as doubtless many on the Labour right will be demanding, is as foolish as saying Labour lost because it wasn’t left-wing enough, as many on the incurably optimistic left are already saying.

Labour did not lose just because it could not appeal to the centre, or picked the wrong Miliband. The problems that threaten to leave it as one party among many don’t fit into conventional notions of left and right. Like so many of its sister parties in Europe, Labour is being swamped by the politics of national identity. The SNP has driven Labour out of virtually every seat in Scotland. The nationalists were mendacious but astonishingly successful in turning Labour into “red Tories” – quislings who had forfeited the right to be true Scots. Labour had no convincing answer to them. South of the Tweed, real Tories could frighten English voters by turning Labour into “red nats”, the accomplices and playthings of their Scottish masters. Labour had no convincing answer to them either. Only in London did the English left triumph. My comrades at the Observer say that, as an educated, multi-cultural and dynamic city, London represents a possible future. Success in the capital speaks well for Labour’s long-term prospects, they say.

The trouble is that the long-term can take a long time coming, and many people will suffer needlessly under Conservative governments before it arrives. In the England that does not look like London, the white, poor, uneducated constituencies that run up the east coast from Kent to Sunderland, Ukip came second in 100 seats. It may fall apart without its charismatic leader. It may one day be seen as a freak movement that dominated debate for a few years, then vanished. But Scots once thought the same about SNP, and the dismal fact remains that Labour could not answer Ukip’s xenophobia any more than it could answer the crude appeals to nationalist loyalty of the SNP and Tories.

It could not because Labour’s leadership of former special advisers does not look like the people it wants to represent and does not look as if it likes the look of them either. In this, it is typical of the wider educated left in England, which almost alone in the world, makes a virtue of denigrating its own people.

The universities, left press, and the arts characterise the English middle-class as Mail-reading misers, who are sexist, racist and homophobic to boot. Meanwhile, they characterise the white working class as lardy Sun-reading slobs, who are, since you asked, also sexist, racist and homophobic. The national history is reduced to one long imperial crime, and the notion that the English are not such a bad bunch with many strong radical traditions worth preserving is rejected as risibly complacent. So tainted and untrustworthy are they that they must be told what they can say and how they should behave.

What truth there is in the caricature is lost amid the accompanying hypocrisy. The intellectual left deplores racism but uses “white” as an insult. It lambasts the sexism of the right, but stays silent as Labour candidates run meetings where Muslim women’s inferiority is confirmed by stewards who usher them into segregated seating .

Lost, too, is any notion of how to change a society. Countries are like individuals. They will take criticism from friends and family who have their best interests at heart. If opponents make the same criticisms for the same good reasons, however, they dismiss them as insults from people who only mean them harm.

If the left is going to come back, its first task is to show that, deplorable and stupid though we undoubtedly are, in so many different and disgraceful ways, it doesn’t actually think the English are its enemies.

...Ukip came second in 100 seats. It may fall apart without its charismatic leader. It may one day be seen as a freak movement that dominated debate for a few years, then vanished. But Scots once thought the same about SNP

No they didn't

May as well stop reading there.

... I wish I had tbh!

Also, as you might have gathered, I am no supporter of the SNP, but to attribute their success to as down to 'crude appeals to nationalist loyalty' is as stupid and short-sighted as anything he attributes to the Labour Party.

He also doesn't realise that scots 'nationalism' isnt like the english/british kind. He's a friend of a friend on FB so I asked him about Scotland and put across my view of yes voters/snp/independence lets see if I get a reply.

Tom I felt as if this was aimed at ilx ;) (yeah like he's aware of ilx haha)

The universities, left press, and the arts characterise the English middle-class as Mail-reading misers, who are sexist, racist and homophobic to boot. Meanwhile, they characterise the white working class as lardy Sun-reading slobs, who are, since you asked, also sexist, racist and homophobic. The national history is reduced to one long imperial crime, and the notion that the English are not such a bad bunch with many strong radical traditions worth preserving is rejected as risibly complacent. So tainted and untrustworthy are they that they must be told what they can say and how they should behave.

What truth there is in the caricature is lost amid the accompanying hypocrisy. The intellectual left deplores racism but uses “white” as an insult. It lambasts the sexism of the right, but stays silent as Labour candidates run meetings where Muslim women’s inferiority is confirmed by stewards who usher them into segregated seating .

Lost, too, is any notion of how to change a society. Countries are like individuals. They will take criticism from friends and family who have their best interests at heart. If opponents make the same criticisms for the same good reasons, however, they dismiss them as insults from people who only mean them harm.

If the left is going to come back, its first task is to show that, deplorable and stupid though we undoubtedly are, in so many different and disgraceful ways, it doesn’t actually think the English are its enemies.

I don't think that Scottish 'nationalism' is that different from any other kind tbh. But you don't have to be a a nationalist to vote SNP.

yup, tom. you got it (you didn't until last year tbh)

I said that i felt Salmond was a nationalist, probably a centrist and a pragmatic politician whilst I felt that Nicola Sturgeon was a left-leaning Social Democrat and that is why the SNP resonates with 50% of the Scottish electorate who think labour are too right wing.

tbh with the huge intake of new members wanting independence I think its possible that actual nationalists in the SNP are well outnumbered. It's a real new shift in politics in Scotland.
It's not Salmond's lion roaring braveheart stuff anymore.

I hope not. But, here we go again, the Labour Party is absolutely fucking annihilated and humiliated in Scotland and what do the handwringers in the media want to talk about: the Labour Party is too left wing and not paying enough attention to the English.

yup, better together my arse? Scotland didn't do as we want so who cares about them, we don't need them anymore.
They just want to copy Cameron's English nationalism he opted for publicly the day after the referendum.
If that type of person takes over the labour party then its done for and no independent of uk labour party (as has been proposed up here) who will win in scotland either.

Another thing to bear in mind is that a lot of those LibDem seats that went blue are going to remain so for a very long time. One of the reasons that Labour were able to win elections under Blair was that the LibDems were chipping away at the Tories - they doubled their number of seats in 1997. That isn't going to happen for a very long time and the Tories will have a nice cushion over Labour regardless of what happens in Scotland.

Meanwhile Labour and the LibDems currently have a substantial blocking majority in the House of Lords. God, this Parliament is going to be a miserable clusterfuck for so many reasons.

kudos to the blairites. they've been mining their fat rolodexes non-stop since friday morning, delivering their spontaneous (i.e. pre-planned) hot takes on the failures of red ed. trying to socialise the bitter idea that the party has to shift right

nick cohen using the past its sell-by date quirk of english to conflate two completely different philosophies. other european languages have two words for these things. "nationalist": someone who believes their nation / people are inherently superior (whether by race, history, morality etc) & should be pre-eminent amongst nations, have more power than, or power-over other nations. "independista": someone who believes their country is as good as other countries & should be governed by the people who live in it & know it.

the irony during indyref was that it was the unionist side that made a constant appeal to tribal ethnic scottishness: "I'm a proud scot but..." went the line for weeks

It also doesn't help that people think the N in SNP stands for Nationalist.

*some* people, that should say

yeah it's simply 'National' but I gave up a year ago trying to tell people that.

and it wasnt just those with union flag avatars on their profile pics either. it was irl people too. they just believe what they want to believe in some cases

strangely enough, but English friends online, who didn't get it before (and a lot did) , started to get it this week. Most dont want Scotland to leave the UK as they think that will leave with the tories and think federalism is the answer. Ive not seen many people arguing for that up here. It seems to be mostly yes vs no with some on both sides saying devo max, but devo max is not federalism, right?

Anyone care to explain federalism to me?

LOL Guy Incognito?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/generalelection/nigel-farage-is-odds-on-to-be-next-ukip-leader-10239428.html

was reading up on the new fabulous/fighting/feeble (delete as appropriate) 56 earlier: looks like a higher proportion of them are more experienced than the blair intake of labour MPs. many seem to be mature people who have had a life. there's also at least a dozen experienced MPs incl. just abt the most experienced politician in the UK to guide them on parliamentary processes

Yeah, but everyone's focussing on Mhairi Black and going "lol, teenager acted like a teenager, lol Scotland" etc.

"everyone" being about five people on Twitter and some mates in the pub. I'm all about the generalisations, it must be catching.

mhairi black who won against 1. an incumbent and 2. very experienced and wily career politician 3. whose party were funneling resources at and 4. who was shadow foreign secretary and 5. labour's campaign strategist.

as far as I've seen reported, she won her place in parliament (& in history) by knocking just about every door in paisley. well done & good luck to her

Yeah, and by being passionate, articulate, and sympathetic to the needs of the constituents. But that doesn't stop there being a weird "but she's 20! And she said some stuff on twitter before she went into politics!" narrative surrounding her.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/10/election-2015-where-the-votes-switched-and-why
"The way forward for Labour is not clear, as the different groups that shunned the party in 2015 make contradictory demands for change....The choice is hard: any shift to appeal to one group risks alienating others. Yet attempting to offer something to everyone, as Ed Miliband’s Labour often seemed to do, risks satisfying no one."

That sums it up pretty well.

school > politics degree > parliament & she describes Douglas Alexander as a career politician

also her SNP biog has an apostrophe in "MPs" - is this the sort of person we want running out country?
xp

Yeah, my sister is always posting shite abt Milliband and Jim Murphy never having had a proper job... and she voted for her!

didnt jim purphy once make a thing about being university educated until people found out he never actually passed his degree course?

Looking forward to her being pulled up for never having had a proper job in 10-15 years time.

I don't think she's passed her degree course yet (xp)

tbf, conversation around these parts does tend to focus on her because, well, she's from round these parts. And because she's very newsworthy, more so than the other - as you say - experienced and mature political bods who are heading for Westminster.

This SNP victory is largely pyrrhic. The Tories will go down the route of devolving more powers not out of the goodness of their hearts or new-found respect for the Democratic choices of Scots. They will use it as a smokescreen to massively reduce central government funding and create a situation where the SNP have to enact their own unpopular policies (either spending cuts or big tax rises).

They want the sheen to come off the SNP's left wing credentials so that when people complain, the Tories can go "see, you asked for this it'll get worse under independence". Not saying everyone will fall for it but probably enough to make a second No vote a likelihood.

I agree. It's ironic enough that they'd have had the better settlement by working with Labour.

Dimbleby was trying to draw John Swinney on that on QT on Friday, "so you want full fiscal autonomy, the Barnett formula scrapped and all the revenue raised in Scotland given to Scotland for them to spend as you see fit?" "no, we want to be able to spend the money Scotland has on the areas we think will best benefit Scotland and stimulate the Scottish economy."

If I was judged on everything I said when I was 15 I would never be allowed to do anything, ever. And I'm definitely all for having better representation of both women and young women. But as an inhabitant of Mhairi Black's constituency I feel troubled that she is my representative. I would love for her to prove me wrong but I'm not convinced that at twenty years old, having only ever been in full-time education or behind the counter of the local chip shop, she has the skills needed to be a day-to-day constituency representative: it's a job that needs tact and diplomacy and understanding yet firmness and confidence and self-belief, and I'm not sure how much she can have of all this at this point in her life. I'm not talking about the standing up in Parliament giving speeches and winning support, I'm thinking of when someone comes to see her in her office about a local concern and she has to say no to something for a valid reason. This is of course based on projecting my experience of being twenty and the students I work with on a daily basis - I'm working from some uncomfortable assumptions and she could be a lot more up to the job than I would expect from what I have seen of her and her potential.

It's not like there are a great deal of MPs who *do* have much more life experience - six months in a law firm seems to be standard training at this point - and I do hope that she is up to it, not just for the sake of my town but for the sake of herself: with all the press spotlight on her distinctive newsworthy character there's a sense that the media are waiting for her first major fuck-up, and that seems really sad regardless of how I feel about the SNP. I really do hope that she's being under-estimated.

The SNP is not short of existing representatives to give her some on-the-job training, though.

didnt jim purphy once make a thing about being university educated until people found out he never actually passed his degree course?

9 years at uni without graduating - spent years of that on NUS duties.

He matriculated at Strathclyde in 1985 and left without a degree in 1997. The nine year thing excludes a number of years out/gap years/whatever.

i agree that nobody under the age of 40 shd be allowed to stand for parliament