This from the Guardian this morning explains exactly why the left lost so heavily in the Canadian general election:
The Liberals neatly outflanked the formerly leftist NDP, which had promised orthodox fiscal rectitude in order to persuade Canadians of their fitness for office.
When will the right wing of social democratic parties realise that you can't win an election by claiming to be on the left and yet offer austerity? Time after time it fails, and rightly so.
And it will in the UK again unless Labour does really embrace what it means to be on the economic left.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
I think that is a correct assessment – the only silver lining is that the extreme right (in the shape of Stephen Harper’s Conservatives) also lost. The Liberals look like a centrist Obama Democrats-type party as far as I can tell.
Assessment close but no cigar….If the truth be told, a camera shot on TV, showed the reality that, no citizen/voter could ever make the NDP pundits or officials understand. Here is that scenario…..one conservative pundit/or/official, one Liberal/pundit/or/official and one NDP pundit/or/official. Questioning begins with the two opposition parties arguing between themselves, while the conservative simply sat and smiled….The target was supposed to Harper and the conservatives–after all, this was the only election where voters were simply trying to vote–ABC (anybody but conservative /or/ ABH anybody but Harper). The party of cruelty and no real affinity for anyone that disagrees with them, even if they are citizens…Imagine the creeping crap that now has to be undone or overturned…..As for ISIS, the Russians are showing that the US/NATO were not seriously going after ISIS but were targeting Assad, which finds most people confused as Assad was the tyrant for decades just like Saddam and —all of a sudden without any further reasoning Assad is the latest demon….Its all about changing the ME into controllable regions for the US and Israel, they may even have additional plans….Canada is now out of Syria, thanks to Trudeau…..May not agree with all of his policies such as ISDS clause again in the latest trade agreement TPP, etc—but we need to work with this leader —Harper was so corrupt and devious there was no credibility left…..
Except that all the post-election analysis conducted by focus groups from the left, right and unaligned, showed that Labour lost precisely because voters did not trust them with the public finances. How is shifting to the economic left going to help rectify that perception?
If Corbyn crashes and burns, will you change your mind?
Of course they did not trust them: they were selling a rubbish policy
Robin, PLEASE stop trotting out this – what I can only politely call tosh. The public didn’t trust Labour on the economy because the two Ed’s FOOLISHLY decided not to counter the Tory lie that “Labour wrecked the economy”, something they SHOULD have done, 5 times a day, 24/7 for the first 12 months of Ed Milliband’s leadership, as John Prescott told them at the time (see: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/09/john-prescott-ed-miliband-election-campaign-labour).
If LABOUR wasn’t going to trust in, and defend their own record, why on earth should the voters, for Labour actually managed the economy superlatively well, at least by comparison with the current Osbornomic vandals? (see http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/aug/04/labour-economic-record-clean-bill-of-health?CMP=share_btn_tw
But Labour failed to tell people this, on the risible grounds that “that would be to look to the past; we want to look to the future!”, and so the two Ed’s couldn’t bang on about all the many – VERY many – achievements of the Blair/Brown years (see https://kittysjones.wordpress.com/2013/06/11/labours-achievements-lest-we-forget/)
The two Ed’s forgot the great political dictum “He who controls the present, controls the past: and he who controls the past, controls the future” – as the appalling Con-Dem Coalition, and their even more appalling, neo-feudal Conservative successors, have amply shown: by controlling the historical narrative, the Tories are on the point of finally deconstructing TOTALLY the Social-Democratic arrangement of the post-War years, which produced so much wealth, security and genuine happiness, and replacing it with a neo-feudal, social Darwinian state that very few of even the 24% (total electorate) or 36% (of those who voted) actually want or would like, all because the Tories have mastery of the black arts of media manipulation and narrative-spinning.
And the two Ed’s just let then get away with it – not “one hand tied behind their backs”, but BOTH, and with their feet stuck in the deep mud of a tidal swamp – immobile in their stupidity, like a couple of Aunt Sallies. Frankly, it’s a wonder Labour didn’t lose more seats, given the incredible incompetence of their handling of narratives. The fact that Ed M increased the Labour vote by 1.8%, and actually garnered more votes, not just than Gordon Brown, but than Tony Blair in 2005, shows what COULD have been achieved with an intelligent campaign.
The neo-libs in the Labour Party need to shut up, and if necessary, butt out, and let the REAL message of anti-austerity be put across – a message which links up nicely to the REAL achievements of the Blair/Brown years, where the economy WAS managed for the benefit of the majority, whatever misgivings we may have about other aspects of those years.
I have to admit that when one of Ed Ball’s advisers likes to lecture me ( as he does) your logic expressed here comes to mind, every time
And I ignore him as a consequence
Andrew
Absolutely right – nail on head. Labour’s failure to rebut the propaganda was truly amateur & pathetic. The only memorable time I noticed a rebuttal was that by Joan Bakewell on HIGNIFY when she instantly responded to Ian Hislop’s assertion that Labour’s overspending had caused the crash.
I note that both Lib Dem & Tory politicians used identical propaganda cliches (… like Greece; maxed out credit card; money tree etc) presumably provided by Tory HQ.
The voters didn’t trust Labour because (a) the Conservatives spent 5 years lying through their teeth in blaming Labour for the financial crises caused by the free market ideology they themselves follow, and (b) Labour spent 5 years not defending themselves from this nonsense.
Enough people believed the lies and scaremongering of the right for the Conservatives to win a majority. Nothing to do with left wing economic policies Robin, everything to do with stupidity, guillibility and dishonestly.
Never mind Corbyn crashing and burning, the current system will crash and burn, because it is simply unsustainable…it is only a matter of when.
The Labour Party is utterly doomed unless it provides a clear outline of what the Government’s means actually are and that surpluses/deficits are a steering wheel and that unemployment is a choice that this Government has made whilst presenting it as something uncontrollable like the weather. 40 year myths take time to dispel but Labour needs to start now but we know it can’t because of being hobbled by it own MP’s. The neo-libaral crap will have to be drunk to its dregs-this is something I’m beginning to psychologically accept whilst maintaining a spirited personal resistance allied with others of like mind.
here’s Bill Mitchell’s conclusion of a recent blog of his:
“At some point, ‘we’ the people will fight back. It would be better if it was through the ballot box and we pushed out governments that were ‘pro business’ and elected governments that were keen to advance general public welfare initiatives.
But when so-called progressives support the socialist parties and labour-type parties that denounce so-called deficit deniers and when in power manage and implement pernicious austerity programs there is little hope in the foreseeable future of such enlightened politicians getting their hands on power.
Something ugly is the alternative and human history tells us that it happens.”
How stupid it all is, how unutterably stupid!
Now that McDonnell has stopped dithering and made the correct decision not to endorse the tories fiscal charter, I am a little more optimistic. I hear they will roll back the tory cuts to tax credits, which is also good. However, it should be realised by Labour that ta credit is simply the state subsidising low wages. Instead of endorsing tax credits, they should be aiming for a more realistic minimum wage of say £10 an hour.
They should make it clear they are an opposition party and make a clear commitment to overturn totally unnecessary austerity measures.
£10 is the target
Lying right at the heart of the issue of trust in the use of money is the deeply hard-wired reasoning inability of human beings to easily get the emphasis or balance right between Individualism and Collectivism in regard to both money creation and equitable reward in money distribution.
Few are able to rise above their own narrow individual, household or business desires to see the the big macroeconomic reality that money is a collective resource that has to be carefully shepherded to maximum the common good. In consequence we get the development of Neoliberal ideology an intensely individualistic outlook on life masquerading as a collective outlook through the deeply flawed General Equilibrium theory.
I so agree with you on general quilibrium theory
I actually loath everything about equilibrium
It is the antithesis of all human endeavour only beloved of economists of a certain persuasion
As Jeannette winterton said some time ago about the government, would they get off their arse for £7 an hour.
Apologies, not ladylike language for a senior.
Sylvia, I don’t think there’s a member of Cameron’s Cabinet who would get off their are for less than £700 – possibly even £7,000 – per hour. And even then, they would get some skivvy – sneeringly described as a “shirker and scrounger” – to do the real work.
Our current Panjandrums suffer from spiritual plagiarism – they try to copy the feelings and reaction of people possessed of authentic being, only demonstrating that they are spiritual automata, bereft of empathy.
“ur current Panjandrums suffer from spiritual plagiarism — they try to copy the feelings and reaction of people possessed of authentic being, only demonstrating that they are spiritual automata, bereft of empathy.”
Beautifully put Andrew- You might be interested in a book called ‘Wounded leaders’ by Nick Duffel. This looks at the type of background many of these people come from which leads to a loss of empathy and a type of callous thuggishness hidden behind received pronounciation accents . Worth a read.
Labour will forever be haunted by the “there is no money left” memo. That’s why the public don’t trust them. Didn’t Cameron carry that note around with him in the last election?
Corbyn will destroy the Labour Party. As depressing as that might sound, he will.
Wrong on every score
But not worth arguing about
Time will tell
Do you think Jeremy Corbyn will be Prime Minister in 2020?
I think it possible
Of course it is possible – he is the Leader of the Opposition. Do you think it likely?
I think Labour will form the next government
It follows that I think Jeremy Corbyn will be prime minister if he is the party leader at the time
I think he will be the party leader still
Given his lack of popular support, why do you think he will become PM in 2020?
For evidence I point to the by-elections in Scotland (which Corbyn was supposed to be able to win back), as well as his personal polling and his party’s polling.
Is your opinion surprising given you clearly loath everything this blog is about?
Not true. I have made clear my support for PQE under certain constraints and have congratulated you on your contribution to current economic debate as well as your City post.
I would sincerely be grateful for an answer to my question. My opinion on your blog, Jeremy Corbyn, or the world is irrelevant – I have presented a few facts and am curious as to why you think what you do.
Your facts are no such thing: they are at best evidence of transitory opinion and I am aware that such opinion can be changed and does in fact do so
Sorry, but your claims are in that case Are not worth discussing
And the Scottish by-elections? Are they transitory opinion? I think not.
What is it about transitory that you don’t understand?
An election is ultimately a function of a transitory opinion!
We have evidence that Scottish by-elections have not improved at all. All I am wondering is why you think he can win. I am not yet challenging your position – I am simply waiting for your reason, whether based on evidence or reasoned supposition.
There is no reason to get worked up. I genuinely wish to uncover the reasons for your opinion.
Tory divisions
Distaste for the consequnces of cuts
Divisions over the EU
A global downturn
All suggest major Tory problems ahead
Governments lose elections
They already look like they are trying to lose 2020
Interesting. Tory divisions will pale in comparison to Labour ones, don’t you think? And I don’t think the EU questions will cause huge troubles like they did in the 1990s; the leadership candidate on the winning side will most likely take over but I don’t see how any huge split will occur. Interestingly, I think a global downturn from abroad (the ‘from abroad’ is important) will have a net benefit for the Tories insofar as it will strengthen their argument that in tough times you can’t have Labour spending heaps of money (we don’t need to go into how accurate this argument is, by the way).
I think the big problem for the Tories is their image which Cameron has pretty much been unsuccessful in detoxifying. He has always been far more popular than his party and with him gone it will be difficult to keep that cool, compassionate vibe he cultivated. With the tax credit cuts in place, this image problem could do real damage and make a Labour government more of a possibility. Though on balance, Labour still can’t win. But my money’s on Osborne doing some kind of U-turn on tax credits – if nothing else, then to stop Johnson stealing the top job.
In answer to your question, I’d say it was people who determined that Trudeau was more likely to win and didn’t want to risk the other two. There was a serious movement, with a running web site, actively facilitating the ABH votes.
Read this and hope that Canada is about to rediscover some very old values.This old and broken UK public servant shed literal tears.
https://www.liberal.ca/open-letter-to-canadas-public-servants/
Brilliant
That really could the the UK that he is talking about. The Corbyn team should read this and reflect carefully. Its a good time to make it clear whose side they are on so that others can join them