What would make you vote Labour?

Saw this guy being interviewed last night on the BBC news “what went wrong” coverage. Thought he was rather good. They should start with him and forget about all the professional smoothies led by Umunna and the like, IMO.

John Mann.

1/ A different financial policy. I’m left leaning, always have been but their policy of spending their way out of trouble / end to austerity, reversing what i personally think was one of the successes of the last five years, I just couldn’t subscribe to.

2/ I think their policies went too far splitting between the haves and have nots / the rich and the poor, and didn’t speak for me. For a party that invented the squeezed middle as a term, they didn’t seem to speak to the aspirational middle class.

3/ I couldn’t see Ed Miliband representing us on the world stage. Standing up to Merkel, Putin, etc.

As i said in another thread, my hope was for another Con-Lib alliance to carry on much as before, which sadly we didn’t get. I was also scared by the prospect of a rag tag alliance of Labour / Nationalist / Greens, bargaining away parts of policies behind closed doors. If we are going to have coalition politics, be up front about it and let us know what we’re voting for.

If i felt they were a party of aspiration and i didn’t feel that somehow being successful was wrong. if they stopped using the term hard working families – but exclusively then referring to people on lower incomes – can you not be a hard working family otherwise, oh you have a reasonable income therefore you be defacto cannot work hard – complete crock of turd.

I despise the whole people who earn more should pay more mantra – they already do – its called taxation.

I’d happily vote for a new sub-forum for all the political threads.

Getting silly now.

John Mann is our MP. A decent bloke, progressive and approachable.

I feel he is not ‘media friendly’ enough for the front line but has strong integrity. However, maybe being media trained these days is part of the problem.

That’s John Mann, who has been pivotal in exposing the VIP child abuse rings linked to politics and the military, along with abuse carried out on Lambeth council premises.

It goes without saying that he’d get my vote.

Though I’m no fan of the Tories being in power, the shakeup to the Labour party is likely to bring positive change, with both Tom Watson and Simon Danczuk in the running for deputy leader.

(I didn’t vote conservative mind…)

1/ A different financial policy. I’m left leaning, always have been but their policy of spending their way out of trouble / end to austerity, reversing what i personally think was one of the successes of the last five years, I just couldn’t subscribe to.

2/ I think their policies went too far splitting between the haves and have nots / the rich and the poor, and didn’t speak for me. For a party that invented the squeezed middle as a term, they didn’t seem to speak to the aspirational middle class.

3/ I couldn’t see Ed Miliband representing us on the world stage. Standing up to Merkel, Putin, etc.

As i said in another thread, my hope was for another Con-Lib alliance to carry on much as before, which sadly we didn’t get. I was also scared by the prospect of a rag tag alliance of Labour / Nationalist / Greens, bargaining away parts of policies behind closed doors. If we are going to have coalition politics, be up front about it and let us know what we’re voting for
theotherjonv, that sums it up nicely for me.

The things that Lord Sugar has said also hold some water for me. Being anti-business is not good at all, you need to encourage people to be successful and blocking business is not a sensible approach.

I’d happily vote for a new sub-forum for all the political threads.

Getting silly now.

Don’t worry CF you’ll be starting your Skiing/SB thread soon! 🙂

If I were in a party looking to increase vote share, as well as looking at the few % swing voters who voted tory I’d be looking at the third of the electorate who didn’t show up. There must be huge gains to be made by enticing the currently disenfranchised. I suspect this might have been key in the SNPs success, noting that the turnout in Scotland is up by 10% this time around.

1) Less of the “don’t worry, the rich will pay” line and trying to imply that their plans won’t cost YOU anything. It’s not credible and it turns people off.
2)Less “Tory light”. It’s not credible. If I want right wing spending plans I’ll vote for the right wing, they are better at it.
3) Don’t be afriad to be socialsits. Spend more but get a better country.
4) Cycling as a means of transport. Invest at least £10 per person. This is the most progressive thing they could do.

I didn’t vote Labour for several reasons, mainly because I still cannot forgive the following during 1997 – 2010:

Iraq and the “Dodgy Dossier”.
Erosion of civil liberties.
Dropping of the 1997 pledge to provide “comprehensive and reasonably priced public transport”.
The obsession with “spin” and “getting our message across to the voters”.
Failure to provide adequate housing.
The obsession with continuing the legacy of Thatcherism.
The tens of billions of pounds spent on poorly designed computer systems for the public sector that STILL haven’t met their design goals.

BTW, I didn’t vote for the nasties, I voted Green.

I’d happily vote for a new sub-forum for all the political threads.

Getting silly now.
Agreed. I used to hang out a lot on this website linked below, the Political Forum is not for the feint hearted

Sailing Anarchy – Political Forum

Allow thei members to pick the best representative for their local community on merit – Drop the party parachutes, restricted shortlists and blatant nepotism – realise that what happened with Peter Law was indicative of a cancer that would kill popular support for the party.

Embrace the simple message that ensuring and growing a sucessful economy is vital to the future of the welfare state

Stop preaching (rather than persuading) and start listening – Labour delibaretley chose to ignore popular support for a referendum on the EU because they did not want to trust or listen to the electorate.

Stop abusing those who disagree with you – they are your future voters, the more you tell people that they are evil and selfish for voting Tory, the less likely they are to ever be convinced to vote for you in the future. if you tell people that they are bigoted and racist for voicing (moderate and reasonable) concerns over immigration, they will never be won over to your side again.

Accept that within every system there is room for abuse and waste and be willing to castigate those who do it – the more shrill and alarmist your reaction every time anyone highlights an example of this and tries to stop it, the less reasonable you look, as people can see with their own eyes that there is a problem. Stop putting being ‘on message’ above common sense discussion or criticism.

Retain your beliefs and links with social justice, but abandon the unions, they are no longer relevant to the majority of people.

If I were in a party looking to increase vote share, as well as looking at the few % swing voters who voted tory I’d be looking at the third of the electorate who didn’t show up. There must be huge gains to be made by enticing the currently disenfranchised. I suspect this might have been key in the SNPs success, noting that the turnout in Scotland is up by 10% this time around.

The problem with the people who don’t turn up to vote is that they don’t turn up to vote. You’ve also got no idea what they’d respond to, because they don’t vote.

What, that activity which he has one thread per year for? Oh right.

Retain your beliefs and links with social justice, but abandon the unions, they are no longer relevant to the majority of people.

Then labour has no money and has to get it from big business and th eonly way to do that is to be Tory

if, as they claim, they are a party of the working classes, then surely their supporters would fund them (as they essentially are now, just with the unions as a go between)

The problem with the people who don’t turn up to vote is that they don’t turn up to vote. You’ve also got no idea what they’d respond to, because they don’t vote

A defeatist view in my opinion. Just because they didn’t vote this time doesn’t mean they won’t in the future. If turnout in Scotland & Wales is increasing then there MUST be something that’s persuading people into the polling station.

does it matter?

the torries will just outspend labour 10 to 1 come election time
whith the majority of the press regurgitating the official tory PR spin story of the week

Then labour has no money and has to get it from big business and th eonly way to do that is to be Tory

I rather favour the idea that there is a cap on spending for electioneering and it gets paid from the public purse.

So the working classes v big business…are yo some sort of commie?

If i felt they were a party of aspiration

That’s original. Have you been reading the newspapers in the last couple of days by any chance?

Which ‘news’ was this on. Can’t find him on anything. Which Region?

I rather favour the idea that there is a cap on spending for electioneering

There was a cap on spending in F1, too. It didn’t really work. As the side with the most money makes most of the rules.

Not like politics at all, oh no.

To make Labour more appealing they need a proper approach. The gist of this years appeal for sympathy was that they ‘were not the Tories’

And after the mess they left the country in last time (“There’s no money left!”) they should have been a bit more contrite.

And after the mess they left the country in last time (“There’s no money left!”) they should have been a bit more contrite.

FFS the tories have now won two elections and this rubbish is still being regurgitated as fact. Will they still be using this line at the next election?

Then labour has no money and has to get it from big business and th eonly way to do that is to be Tory

the torries will just outspend labour 10 to 1 come election time

Political parties funded by central taxation.

I’d vote for that.

The problem for Labour is the leaders/policy stance the marginal voters (be they Lib Dem or Conservative) would vote for won’t appeal to the core vote. Its the whole new Labour debate all over again.

Funding for parties by taxation etc will never work, it’s too easy for specific projects, leaflets etc etc to be funded privately.

Can people not see the irony of having Labour funded by the state, I mean they want the state to pay for pretty much everything. Consistent at least.

As I posted the loss of the 50+ MPs will cost the Labour party £7+m, they will be materially damaged financially by the loss.

rone – Member
Which ‘news’ was this on. Can’t find him on anything. Which Region?

BBC News channel.

I’d happily vote for a new sub-forum for all the political threads.

Getting silly now.

If only there was a way of seeing what a thread was about before opening it, then only opening the ones you want to see 🙄

Agree with ‘theotherjonv’. And what Nifan said.

i think, and the results to some extent bear this out, that labour missed the mood of the country. The economic difficulties ment that people felt it was a time to cut spending, the same as I have to if I’m running out of money. The saw what was happening in Greece, Spain and Italy and didn’t think that governments that overspent was the way to go. They maybe felt the Tories and done the best in a tight corner. I have voted labour in the past, I vote for a party based on who will do the best for the country. I don’t vote for one party just because I feel it’s a class issue. I want a strong well governed country and I don’t think that proportional representation will do that. FPTP was good enough for Blair.

Blair led Labour to a landslide victory in the 1997 general election, winning 418 seats, the most the party has ever held. The party went on to win two more elections under his leadership

The problem for Labour is the leaders/policy stance the marginal voters (be they Lib Dem or Conservative) would vote for won’t appeal to the core vote

Then you include policies that will appeal to them as well, you create a broad church – For every ‘right of centre’ policy Blair fought through (fast track punishment for young offenders, no income tax rises), there was a thoroughly core vote policy dragged along with it as well (minimum wage, hunting ban) and sharply focused populist ones (Scottish devolution, class sizes)

I should have added earlier – pledge that every pound spent would be used like it was their own kids inheritance, an absolute and relentless focus on and value for money. Appoint a value for money tzar or an efficiency tzar from the world of business, give them powers to walk into any part of the public sector and do a John-Harvey-Jones style time and motion audit.

and this rubbish is still being regurgitated as fact

Er, if the Tories and Labour agree it happened, what do you know Mr Insider?

Really?

If only there was a way of seeing what a thread was about before opening it, then only opening the ones you want to see

yes damn those politics threads with their craftily hidden and cryptic titles ….shakes fist

Labour agree? When did they do that then? I really can’t be arsed going over it again but maybe you should do a bit of googling on why the national debt and deficit rocketed post-2008 and why this resulted in there being ‘no money left’?

@dazh because Labour had made lots of extra spending commitments in the good years instead of moving to a budget surplus and then when the crises hit failed again to get spending under control. As the economy shrank post crises taxes fell markedly whilst spending grew unchecked ?

For starters, an end to:
– stupid glib policy pledges that aren’t thought through and for which the sole aim to is to hoodwink gullible voters – the mansion tax, end of non dom status and energy price fixes being just three
– a clear message on the importance of enterprise in funding good public services
– a clear mea culpa that much of the extra spending under Labour wasn’t “invested’ but was wasted
– honesty that the NHS must transform in order to provide good healthcare free at point of use but critically, where the mindset is focussed on the patient and that not all of the answers will come from within i.e. it can and should learn from best practice worldwide
– MPs that have no experience outside law / journalism / politics – I read that only around 7% of Labour candidates at the most recent election had any job experience in the private sector
– an end to the constant and divisive class war i.e. people are not automatically evil just because of their wealth status or vice versa
– wanting to improve the lot of yourself / your family always can only be achieved at the expense of others

From The Grauniad

when the crises hit failed again to get spending under control

That’s a new one. So post-banking crisis, and with an election looming they were supposed to say, ‘sorry, we’re going to have to stop all the school and hospital building and slash welfare because we had to give all the money to the banks’?

And please stop with the ‘they didn’t fix the roof when the sun was shining’ rubbish. it’s cliched nonsense in the same vein as national credit cards and the bloody gold. There’s plenty enough ammunition to have a go at the labour party without making up things.

Joshua Chambers 2010 nterview for civil service life with Lord Turnbull, former head of the Civil Service and Cabinet Secretary for Blair from 2002-2005:

Speaking last month, the retired civil service chief said it was too difficult for civil servants to call for public spending to be reigned in until after the financial crisis hit.

The former cabinet secretary said that the Treasury was prone to “wishful thinking” and that “the politics” of the time had prevented civil servants from speaking more openly about the increasing level of debt.

He suggested that spending was too high because of “optimism bias” in the growth forecasts: “It was a forecast error, but also by a process of optimism bias, not enough people were saying: ‘Come on, do you really think we are able to expect 2.75 per cent growth indefinitely?’”

Questioned on whether he thinks civil servants should have come forward, Turnbull – who was permanent secretary at the Treasury from 1998 to 2002 – suggested that they were scared to. “Yes, maybe Whitehall should have,” he said. “But it’s quite difficult when your minister is proclaiming that we have transformed the propects of the UK economy.”

When asked directly what prevented civil servants from telling politicians that borrowing was too high, he said: “The politics was that we had put an end to boom and bust.”

Turnbull added: “We had a sense of overconfidence; it happened all around the world, but it was a rather extreme form of it in the UK.”

The problem, he argued, demonstrates a need for an organisation such as the Office of Budget Responsibility, which has been set up by the coalition government. “Having someone outside the process is helpful,” he said. “I think the OBR is something which is necessary, providing some degree of external constraint less prone to wishful thinking.”

Turnbull said that that excessive borrowing started to be a problem from 2005. “It kind of crept up on us in 2005, 2006, 2007, and we were still expanding public spending at 4.5 percent a year,” he said, arguing that the Treasury should have been putting more money aside. “You might have thought that we should have been giving priority to getting borrowing under better control, putting money aside in the good years – and it didn’t happen,” he commented.

Turnbull said that “there were some other places that had begun to accumulate surpluses for a rainy day; places like Australia.”

While Turnbull argued that the primary reason Britain is “in the mess that we’re in” is because “public spending got too big relative to the productive resources of the economy, by error” he added that a loss of output caused by the financial crisis has also contributed to the budget deficit.

Who would’ve thought it, if you spend more than you collect in tax things go bust!

I don’t know whether to laugh or cry that politicians need this explaining to them by civil servants….and then still don’t get it!