You are here: Home » Featured »

Andy Burnham – the runaway winner of our MP of the month contest

March 13, 2012 10:33 am

Tags:

Share this Article

Not content with placing him firmly at the top of the shadow cabinet rankings (for the second month in a row) you’ve also awarded shadow health secretary Andy Burnham the LabourList MP of the month award for February. Burnham has been relentless in his opposition to the health bill, and Labour members and supporters have clearly acknowledged their appreciation of his work.

Burnham comfortably beat off competition from last month’s winner Chuka Umunna, Stella Creasy, Emily Thornberry and Tom Watson to claim the prize – and received more than three times as many votes as any other MP.

Congratulations to Andy on his double win this month.

Related posts:

  1. Review of the race: Andy Burnham
  2. October’s MP of the month
  3. Why I’m backing Andy Burnham for leader
  4. Why I’m backing Andy Burnham for leader
  5. The race in review: Andy Burnham
  • http://twitter.com/celticchickadee isla

    the best leader Labour never had? Yet? 

    • Robert_Crosby

      Are you serious??!  Like so many others since May 2010, it’s a case of ‘Andy Who?’ for me.

  • Jeremy_Preece

    My previous comments about Ed and his lack of leadership, and the point that most of the electorate cannot see him as a future prime minister, resulted in further discussion. This eneded with the retort that there was no one else that could run Labour and so we are stuck with going down at the next election with Ed at the helm.
    So here is some hope, other than David M and E Cooper et al, there seems to be another front runner in Andy Burnham.

    Now we need some flagship policies, stop appologising for the last government, and the winning back of some of our economic credibility – and we are there.

    • AlanGiles

      ”
      Now we need some flagship policies, stop appologising for the last government,”

      I agree with the first part of that, but as for apologising for the past – though there ARE things to apologise for, such an apology would look otiose while Liam Byrne remains in the shadow cabinet – the man who boasted there was no money left, and continues to bash the sick.

      • Jeremy_Preece

        No government on the planet saw the banking crisis coming. That is none. The Tories certainly did not. It was a world wide problem.
        In retrospect there were things that all countries have done and we must learn from that.
        This is a million miles from the Tory lie that everything to do with the world-wide crisis was Labour’s fault. Following on, that the Tories would have you believe that as they were not in government cannot share the blame, but can now in retrospect change what they said at the time.
        So the Tories say it was all Labour’s fault and that they are the good guys (Lie) and Labour leadership just says “sorry sorry thank you, sorry”.
        Therefore the myth gets into public opinion that even Labour think that they are economically unfit to run the country – therefore only the Tories can be trusted, and no matter what the Tories do it is all Labours fault.

        I say that the Labour leadership should not have allowed that and should have challeneged it head on. I stand by that.

        • AlanGiles

          Jeremy, I don’t disagree with you on the banking crisis, what I think the previous government needs to apologise for is allowing Purnell to adopt the Freud report, as by the time Purnell was taking it through the HoC Freud had already decamped to the Tories. And of course, Byrne was and remains an enthusiastic supporter of browbeating the unemployed and disadvantaged – the buffoon has the cheek to talk of “responsibility” when his expenses sponging is a matter of public record.

          And, coming up to date Ed Miliband needs to apologise for cancelling a meeting with doctors regarding the NHS reforms, pleading ilness, when, in fact, he attended a football match.

          • Jeremy_Preece

             Or Ed could appologise for his leadership and stand down!

          • AlanGiles

            Who would you like to replace him, Jeremy?. There is an awful lot of second-raters in the front benches of both parties.

          • Jeremy_Preece

             Perhaps Andy Burnham perhaps as front runner, David M if it is not too late for him.
            Both have more charisma and ability to make themselves heard, and communicate a position on something rather than just say what they are not.

          • AlanGiles

            AB is certainly a viable possibility, but I don’t think D Miliband has any more charisma than his brother – he speaks mechanically with too much jargon, and is to some degree tarnished by having been endorsed by Mandelson,  and the Blairite clique, and didn’t escape unscathed from the expenses scandal.

          • Jeremy_Preece

             So we seem Alan to be edging towards agreement.

          • AlanGiles

            Well, Jeremy, I think AB has a more pleasant personality – more down to earth, and more likeable – qualities I do not find in David Miliband – too “retro Blair” for my taste, and in all honesty, if EM goes, I suspect the party at large would vote for another family feud.

          • Alexwilliamz

            He is a ‘normal person’ who has some experience of what many people actually experience. If ear he will remain to ‘Northern’ for many of our London centric MPs and party movers.

          • Jeremy_Preece

             If EM goes it will probably be between AB and DM. And I couldn’t predict which would win it.

          • AlanGiles

            There is no doubt that Miliband is the blue-eyed boy of the Blairites (Mandleson et al), but I am not sure his personality would go down well with the public – he tends to lecture, speak down to people, even sound a bit robotic).

            I certainly couldn’t support a D.Miliband led party TBH

          • http://twitter.com/gonzozzz dave stone

            My two-penn’orth says Hilary Benn.

          • AlanGiles

            Yes.One of the fewnot caught fiddling expenses

        • Dave Postles

          Jeremy_Preece.  Thank you for that statement about the economic issues.

        • http://twitter.com/gonzozzz dave stone

          The Tories blame the deficit on Labour’s ‘profligacy’ for the same reason that Labour does little to refute it: to do otherwise and identify systemic failures would be to criticise the neo-liberal approach both support. I can’t imagine the Labour elite letting ‘anti-business rhetoric’ go that far.

          Both main parties offer the same solutions: more privatisation. The Tories pretend it’s a necessary response to Labour overspending and Labour describe it as delivering far more, for far less.

          We won’t have much of choice in 2015.

          • Jeremy_Preece

             Dave, I put the lack of response of the Labour leadership to a niave view that somehow we could walk away from the issue and it will go away by itself by the next election. This approach represents a total lack of ability to actually face problems head on.

            Cameron and Osbourn in opposition both said that the Tories would match Labour’s spending. Then when that no longer suited them they did another of their 180 degree turns, and ever since have blamed Labour of overspending. There is no excuse for Labour leadership not standing up, and yelling and screeming this point until the media has to take note. These are the points which show that the Conservatives have no high ground at all economically. Next we need to show how the cuts are damaging the economy as whole, and how shrinkage could also lead to the UK loosing its AAA credit rating. Therefore showing that the Tories have no justification for their current policy.

            New Labour was right in the mid 1990s that Labour needed to be seen as the next government in waiting, with a leader ready to be a PM. It was right that Labour was seen as good for business and able to manage the economy as well and better than the Tories. That is where we should go back to.

            Some of the policies following from that same starting point need to be re-evaluated. Instead we publically stated that we had not got a clue and went away to refound ourselves. Privatisation is a good example of a policy that needs to be revisited. It has prooved largley to deliver less value for money than reformed public organisations.
            In terms of economy we should be saying that Labour stands for growth and people working and paying taxes and not loosing their jobs. We need investment in infustructure and the Tories have only spent money on shrinking the economy and causing unemployment. Labour should be business friendly in terms of getting customers with money into busnisses to buy goods and services and thus generate more wealth, more tax revenue and thus actually be able to deal with the deficit by raising the revenue to start paying it off.
            From there we can form the first of a set of flagship policies, and a clear coherant position. Maybe a railway investment and rebuilding programme that benefits people and provides the infrustructure to make Britian good for business would be one such policy. At the moment we are simply saying “boo – hiss to the the Conservatives”, is of no use if when the electorate ask “what would you do?”, we have no answer.
             

          • Dave Postles

            @Jeremy_Preece:disqus
            Good post.

          • http://twitter.com/gonzozzz dave stone

            “Privatisation is a good example of a policy that needs to be revisited. It has proved largley to deliver less value for money than reformed public organisations.”

            Then why did two ex-Labour ministers, last week, claim credit for extending privatisation within the NHS?

            For Labour ‘reform’ can often be read as a coded reference to privatisation – hence Cameron cites Tony Blair as his inspiration for the ‘reform’ and ‘modernisation’ of health and educuation (speech on public service reform, 16th Jan 2012). And, continuing Labour’s ‘reformist’ zeal, Liz Kendall (Shadow Minister for Care and Older People) in a speech (9th March 2012) looked forward to empowering older people with a greater range of Direct Payments (for health care/support), so they can choose between providers – this is another example of promoting the marketisation of the health service.

            Setting aside my own beliefs, which are founded on a sense of morality as well as evidence, I’d say that if Labour are going to proclaim the privatisation/marketisation solution then they should be more forthright in their response to present Tory policy.

    • http://www.facebook.com/elliot.bidgood Elliot Bidgood

      Burnham was my first preference vote in 2010 and I also had the honour of meeting him early last year at a party event. He has plenty of experience, alot of charisma, a real Labour background and his message and positioning in the party is such that he can unite the Blairites and Brownites while still carrying the country. He was never going to win then, and I was surprised that he didn’t even outpace Balls in the final result, but I always felt he was somewhat overlooked.

  • http://raymerrall.com Ray Merrall

    And when are we going to hear from the rest of our MP’s, MSP’s,  MEP’s, Councillors, parish councillors – and members. Why can’t we all be Andy Burnhams? Oh, I forgot. We have all to spend time on these forums telling each other what is going wrong. We all have other things to do. Yeah. Shining Bright! Not!

    • Dave Postles

       @ Ray Merrall
      Yes, I feel suitably reprimanded.  I have to confess that fatigue is setting in in my case.  I marched locally against the cuts to EMA on several occasions, against tuition fees, stood outside NatWest/Barclays/Boots for UKUncut on numerous occasions, marched for the alternative on the great London occasion, distributed my leaflets and canvassed when I was a member of the party – but, quite honestly, I need reinvigoration and I can’t see whence it is coming.  Sorry.

    • AlanGiles

      Would you rather we all lied through our teeth and pretended everything in the garden was lovely, Ray?

      • Jeremy_Preece

         We can indeed say things like “we did not in retropsect have controls over the banking system”, but we can say with that the neither did any other government on the planet, and that the conservatives (Osbourne in particular) objected to even inadequate controls on the banks as he wanted no controls at all.
        It would also help if we mentioned the things that were no right in the same breath as the acheivments of the last government.

  • girlguide

    He seems to be the only Shadow Cabinet member with any profile.  Would have liked to see him as leader.

    • Jeremy_Preece

       Well girlguide it certainly isn’t too late the way EM is going!

  • GuyM

    Relentless opposition to something that will become law no matter what he or Labour does?

    Relentless opposition from a position of deceit?

    As was pointed out today on the DP, if in 2015 the reforms are through, the NHS is still secure and delivering increased patient outcomes more efficiently where exactly will Labour go?

    2015 nightmare scenario for Labour:

    NHS is fine and working better with the promised funding protection in place
    Private sector jobs are starting to bring unemployment down
    The deficit is under control
    Interest rates and inflation are under control
    Osborne is able to start cutting taxes in time for the election.

    What exactly will Labour have to say at that point I wonder?

    • AlanGiles

      Relentless opposition to a policy introduced by a government that doesn’t have a real majority of it’s own (only with the aid of the LibDems) and thus no real mandate, to a policy that is opposed by a great majority of people from inside and outside the profession.

      As for what happens in 2015 – who knows – unless you have suddenly become clairvoyant Guy?.  You’ll be on here saying “cross my palm with silver and I’ll lift the veil”  and we will reply – here’s a fiver. Keep it on :-)

      • GuyM

        I do laugh at this sort of analysis.

        The Tories got a higher share of the national vote in 2010 than Labour did in 2015.

        The UK political system is set up on the basis who who can command a majority in the House of Commons, that is “mandate” i.e. the election gives them an ability to form a government.

        Coalitions have occured before and will do so again.

        Did Labour in the late 70s have no mandate when needing Liberal votes?

        Do you and many others on these pages posting crap about coalitions having no mandate now state:

        1 You are now and forever against any form of PR (almost certain to lead to coalition)?

        2 Had Brown been able to form a coalition in 2010 with the LibDems, you would since that time as a Labour supporter been saying your party had no mandate to govern?

        3 If in 2015 Labour end up as the biggest party, with no majority but can govern via a coalition, you will be arguing that there is no mandate and therefore Labour can’t govern?

        4 That German governments (amongst others) never have a mandate to govern?

        Total and utter bollocks and the sort of tribal stupidity in the face of political reality I guess we have to expect from the left.

        As for clairvoyance, I used the term “scenario” on purpose, there are other scenarios, I was asking what happens if those things come to pass, which they might well do.

        As for professional opposition to NHS reforms, vested interests are invariably against refrom. The BMA was totally against setting up the NHS in the first place but now your party roles them out as martyrs to the cause?

        GPs and Dentist practices, all private run businesses contracted to provide services to the NHS? Read that again Alan….. all PRIVATE run business, for profit, contracted to the NHS. GPs are not “public servants”, they are private employees (often in partnership arrangements) in contractual arrangements to supply the NHS with services.

        Damn, the BMA and all those private businesses…… Labour ideological bedfellows all of a sudden you’d have us believe? Total hypocrisy from your party as always.

        • AlanGiles

          ”
          The Tories got a higher share of the national vote in 2010 than Labour did in 2015.”

          2015? Mystic Guy strikes again!

          I think you were so busy dredging up gutter langauge (“b*llocks,
          crap”) that you lost possession of yourself.

          You are ranting like Lord Haw Haw. Perhaps a cold flannel on the back of the neck?

          Hope you soon feel better, old chap.

          • Brumanuensis

            To be fair on GuyM, he meant 2005.

            The rest, well…

          • GuyM

            Nothing like ignoring all an argument to focus on one typo… sums you up nicely, so thanks.

          • AlanGiles

            Say what you like Guy, but at least I don’t consider myself the intellectual superior of everybody else.

            I was trying to deflate the bubble of pomposity, Guy: the message in question came over as an especially vicious rant. There is absolutely no need to write the word “b*llocks” in your missives – and yet so often you have told us how much you despise the argot of the working class!. Double standards?

            One of these days, Guy, you must write an article for LL telling us why you consider yourself so much “better” than the rest of us. I am sure we all await it with considerable anticipation and interest.

          • GuyM

            Whether you consider it or not, you clearly are intellectually superior to some. False modesty being the oh so favourite pastime of the holier than thou socialist.

            Your criticism of “mandate” of a coalition government was and is “bollocks”. You’d not be saying the same were Brown still in power with LibDem support and as such shows your hypocrisy.

            I do though love your left wing “we are all equal” crap.

            You’d have no problem with admitting superiority in a sport or cultural pursuit. In academic life everything is graded so rank and “superiority” is there for all to see. Yet for intelligence, you and others dare not accept that one is better than another, because to do so let’s all sorts of unpleasant consequences in doesn’t it Alan.

          • AlanGiles

            Guy: For a man who likes to spout nonsense about the “underclass”, and  stick your nose in the air over “working class culture” and how superior you feel, you are very fond of using gutter langauge.

            Still if it gives you a thrill, I suppose it’s better you daub your nonsense here than on the walls of public lavatories. Especially in Surrey.

          • GuyM

            no reply to the points… as expected

            intelligence is not uniform and some are more gifted in that area than others, whether you like it or not

          • AlanGiles

            I am not obliged to reply to you Guy, and I don’t intend to any further. You don’t raise points, you spit out rants. Why you come on this site at all is odd: I suspect time hangs heavily on your hands – perhaps you need to get out more?

          • Brumanuensis

            Well, Iwouldn’t say academic life was entirely predicated on merit.

            Arguing that some people are more gifted than others in particular respects does not translate into ‘superiority’. ‘Superiority’ is the wrong way of thinking about it. An economist, a  judge, a sportsman or woman, a historian and a botanist all have particular areas of excellence, but which is ‘superior’ to the other? It’s not even a question really, because a comparison of their talents will struggle to find an objective measure for them.

            Aside from that GuyM, what exactly are you proposing that we do with this ‘superiority’ of ours? Bring back University constituencies? Double votes for people with IQs of 120 or more? Disenfranchising those who fail to earn more than 3 GCSES at C grade or better?

        • Dave Postles

           I’m reluctant to accept this constant refrain about the GPs over 60 years ago and which people frequently roll out.  The ethos is completely different.  Sixty years of public service has produced an ethos of public service – not vested interest.  The vested interest is in the fragmentation of health for private profit.  The resistance is to maintain a public service ethos.

          • Hugh

            “The ethos is completely different. Sixty years of public service has produced an ethos of public service – not vested interest”

            And coincidentally the best paid doctors outside the US and dentists paid an average £84,000.

          • Hugh

             My mistake: the best paid GPs including the US.

          • Dave Postles

            … and so they should be to reverse the medical brain drain that was occurring.

          • Hugh

             Who knew that being public spirited paid so well.

          • jaime taurosangastre candelas

            You are not so wrong.

            If you want to make money in medicine without going to the length of winning a Nobel Prize, you become a plastic surgeon stitching silicone fillets into women’s chests.  But it is not really proper medicine, and you have to have an expensive address.

            Next best is being a GP partner in a rich area, where in addition to your £120,000 a year you will get partnership dividends of £100-200,000 a year.  But you have to buy your partnership on a mortgage, and to me being a GP is not really proper medicine either.  Personally, I believe it to be mostly a job for technicians, not doctors, but they do earn a lot of money because the NHS pays them a lot for their services.

            Then, a proper surgeon with a private practice.  That is proper medicine, and you can make £250,000 a year in combination from your NHS contract and the private practice if you want to sell yourself to the health companies. You need to employ an accountant as the charge-back mechanism is a bit complicated if you use NHS facilities.

            You can also get paid lots of money for writing studies in the NHS in addition to your medical role.  Most of those studies seem inane to me, or peer reviews, or sitting on a panel looking at new equipment that the medical companies want to sell.  It is not very academically challenging for the £10,000, £20,000 or £30,000 per year extra you can be awarded for a couple of hundred hours of effort.  I did it for one year but did not find the work stimulating.

            There is one A&E private hospital in the UK, in London.  I have no idea why it exists – maybe for the Russian oligarchs and their girlfriends and overdoses or other embarrassments.  There seems little point when the NHS provides, free at the point of care. Otherwise, A&E is a salary only job, which I am happy about.

            And of course, for the vast majority of people working within the NHS, it is salary only, and not at great rates.

          • GuyM

            So what you are basically saying, as I pointed out, GPs and the like are basically in private business, contracting services to the NHS and invariably making a fortune by normal standards?

            So pretty much the entire GP surgery coverage in England along with dentistry and a large chunk of services like physiotherapy, pharmacy and podiatry, are private sector provision through what is largely a lot of professional partnerships run on a for profit basis.

            Therefore private sector services run on a “for profit” basis are a backbone of NHS provision and always have been.

            One wonders which world certain Labour party supporters inhabit when they talk about defending the NHS from private sector “for profit” involvement

          • jaime taurosangastre candelas

            Yes, to paragraphs one and 2.  Paragraph 3 states a “backbone” which to me implies a majority of cost as well as a majority of provision, and I do not know the figures for that.  You may be right, or you may be wrong.

            Not all GPs are partners though. Salaried GPs will earn about what I do – mid £70s.

          • GuyM

            A “backbone” in terms of nationwide coverage of a key provision.

            Remove GPs and surgeries (and Dentists) and there is no NHS other than massive queues forming outside every hospital in the country.

          • derek

            Not to sure how the funding allocation is distributed to local health centre’s ans whether or not the partnership mortgage the actual centres or not? but I’m pretty sure they remain part of the NHS system and frontline personnel, I’d be concerned to class GP’s as technicians because they do house calls and safe lives with their doctorate knowledge. 

            We all know GCS and the likes have been profiteering from ill health for a long time, it’s a major problem when patients can’t get the right medication because of the cost issue and on that note would you really put  profit before a life?

          • AlanGiles

            ”
             you become a plastic surgeon stitching silicone fillets into women’s chests. ”

            I suppose these sort of doctors have their knockers, but they just feel they are keeping abreast of the times!

            (Sorry, I watched too many Carry On films!. Ooh, matron…..)

          • Hugh

            “If you want to make money in medicine without going to the length of
            winning a Nobel Prize, you become a plastic surgeon stitching silicone
            fillets into women’s chests.”

            Not really. Once you’re clearing 100k, why not forgo the next 100 and also do something that makes you feel good about yourself.

            I don’t resent surgeons’ earnings – well, not much anyway (although paying GPs far more than we need to seems an odd decision given that healthcare costs are only going to rise anyway). My point is just that: a)  the idea GPs and dentists are peculiarly selfless is nonsense, as the BMA’s negotiating efforts make clear; b) we probably don’t actually need to pay newly qualified dentists like football players, so why does it make sense to do so; and c)  it’s curious that the 99 percenters seem to have no objection to the one per cent so long as they’re primarily funded from taxing the general population.

            Finally, you’re right, of course – for the vast majority of people working within the NHS, it is salary only, and not at great rates. But, then, if you removed the words “within the NHS” from that paragraph it would still be true wouldn’t it.

        • Brumanuensis

           Constitutionally-speaking, GuyM is correct. The government is ‘legitimate’, as we live in a parliamentary democracy. How this affects Lansley’s ‘no top down re-organisations of the NHS’, I do not know. 

          It’s funny, btw, that you’re now assailing us for aligning ourselves with the private sector. I thought you wanted us to do that sort of thing? I thought you’d be pleased to see us degenerate silly lefties standing alongside upstanding private businessmen and women? 

          Of course you complain about the BMA, but given that Lansley claims this bill is supposed to put doctors and clinicians in charge of commissioning services – as opposed to those evil faceless bureaucrats the Tories are so vexed about – surely the opinion of the medical associations whose members are supposed to be taking over the responsibilities provided for in the Bill, is relevant? Or is this just another example of your hatred of anything resembling a trade union, coming to the fore?

          • Dave Postles

            Probably so, but, given all the trouble taken by the Cabinet Secretary to address an ‘unprecedented’ situation and the existence of a Coalition Programme, there are additional questions this time round, perhaps?

          • Brumanuensis

            Perhaps, but I think that it’s more likely that the absence of a peace-time coalition in Britain since the 1929 election, was the crucial factor. Coalitions are unfamiliar to most modern British voters and politicians. That means people are uneasy about them.

            For those reasons, I think GuyM is correct is his analysis. Perhaps I’m being generous to him given that I rarely agree with is views, but objectively I feel there is nothing constitutionally ‘untoward’ about the government. Politically on the other hand…

        • Jeremy_Preece

          I don’t find very much very funny here.
          The Tories are breaking their election pledge regarding the NHS. They had no mandate from the electorate – or rather have exceeded it. The LibDem MPs were put into this parliment to oppose exactly the policies that they are making possible, and have not only silenced themselves from criticising the government, but have made the Tories stronger than they would have been even if Cameron had scraped an overall majority.

          The point about this coalition is that there was no real overlap of policies between the LibDems and the Tories, although there was an overlap in some areas between LibDem and Labour.
          While the a coalition with Labour could not happen because the numbers didn’t stack up, then a coalition between LibDem and Tory really should not have happened because their policies didn’t overlap.
          The result was a betrayal of the LibDem voters by their newly elected MPs within days of the election. The lack of legitimacy of this coalition is reflected in the way the ratings of the LibDems in the opinion polls.

          • GuyM

            Really?

            So all those southern LibDEm MPs in constituencies where votes historically shifted from Tory to LibDem are in fact backed by Labour leaning voters?

            I think not. You as do others assume all LibDem voting electorates are of the left, whereas in southern seats they ar emore of hte centre right then centre left. Stop applying northern political logic to the south.

            As to legitimacy, according ot polls 45% to 50% of the electorate still support coalition parties. That’s more than Labour and that’s more of a mandate than Labour as well.

          • Jeremy_Preece

             Guy. I live in the South, in College Town Sandhurst, on the boarders of Berkshire, Surrey and Hampshire. I joined Labour in 2010 and was asked to stand in my ward at the local elections in May 11.
            The ward is a very Tory one, although the LibDems once held it and Labour which scored double figure votes had not even contested the ward in the previous local election.
            I went out and knocked on doors and had a long argument with the local LibDem leader in a series of letters in the local free newspaper. I attacked the LibDems without mercy and talked about the cuts and what that meant to the voters.
            I am pleased to say that while I knew that the Tories would win outright (they got about 900 votes) we got 350 and the LibDems came third on 200. I know therefore that the votes were won from LibDems. The most significant number for me were the two thirds of those on the electoral role who didn’t vote. 
            I am convinced that it is possible to make headway, if we have leadership and direction as well as a local Labour Party that believes in itself.
            You are right that there are LibDem voters who might vote Tory but would never vote Labour. However the Tories are not popular, it is just that in this area they are hated least. Therefore with leadership and direction I am sure that there are many seats at least in local elections that we could win. For example if we could have connected with one in five of those who didn’t vote and all of the other votes remained the same, Labour would have won that ward.

          • Brumanuensis

            I would suggest ‘Wells’ as an example of the Liberal Democrats gaining from a fairly straight-forward transfer of Labour votes.

            Another would be David Laws’ seat, Yeovil, where his share of the vote increased by 5.3%, whilst Labour’s dropped by 4.1%. The rest came from the Tories. Not to mention Paddy Ashdown first won the seat by persuading Labour voters to switch to Liberal – see the 1983 election figures for proof. 

            Another example would be Torbay, where, once again, the bulk of the increase of the Liberal Democrat vote in a – marginal – seat, appears to have come from Labour voters switching – although some appear to have switched to the Tories too.

            The broader point about south-western voter dynamics being closer to the centre-right than the centre-left is very likely accurate, but it is also true that Liberal Democrats have substantially benefited, even in these areas, from tactical voting by voters who elsewhere might have backed Labour. This support can be revoked, to the Liberal’s cost.     

                

    • Dave Postles

       Unemployment rose by 28k in the latest figures.  It’s a log scale sort of thing: the higher the figures go, the incremental increase will be less – until the public sector redundancies really hit in (another 70% to go, apparently).  Look at it a different way too: the number of total hours worked per employee.  The private sector is ‘creating’ (if it dies) bits of jobs.  I’ve heard the distressing personal narratives about people on 16 hours or so, about to lose their benefits because they cannot increase their hours to the 24 minimum.  It’s a disaster. 

      • Brumanuensis

        I’d add on to this the observation that whilst the numbers of part-time jobs increased (+59,000), the numbers of full-time jobs decreased (-50,000). The number of persons working part-time, because they were unable to find a full-time job increased (+110,000, the fastest rate since 1992). Wage increases were averaging 1.4% (-o.5 percentage points on the previous survey), which is about 40% of inflation and lower than the forecast inflation figure for the end of 2012 (BoE estimate appx. 2%). Additionally, the number of job vacancies fell by 5000 in February.

        The only good news was the fact that the quarterly increase in private-sector employment (+45,000) was more than the quarterly fall in public-sector employment (-37,000). This is, however, so anaemic that I’m not sure how well the next round of public-sector job losses will be absorbed.        

        • Dave Postles

           Thanks – that’s an interesting, deeper, analysis.

          • Brumanuensis

            The dangerous feature of the current ‘rally’ in consumer spending – although the Services PMI for February and the British Retail Consortium’s latest figures on sales are not encouraging – is that it seems to be built entirely on debt or private savings. Low-income households are using debt. Higher-income households are relying on savings (see Philip Inman’s analysis in today’s Guardian).

            This is unhealthy because – conservative or socialist alike – we can agree that a consumer boom built entirely on consumer debt or running down private reserves is unstable in the longer-term, especially if it’s used for short-term spending needs. Eventually interest rates will have to rise and at that point the stress on households will aggravate dramatically. The latest analysis suggests that households have, on average, been reducing unsecured debts – according to the Consumer Credit Counselling Service (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17359394), but weak wage growth makes repayment of existing debts harder.  

            Most alarming is the growing use of payday loans – indicated by the CCCS report – which suggests many low-income households are in serious financial stress. If weak wage growth continues, the consequences could become more severe.

            N.B. other commentators: the previous Labour government were foolish to encourage debt-fuelled consumption too and paid too little attention to stagnating median wages. That doesn’t make the current government’s incompetence excusable.

          • Brumanuensis

            Just to clarify, I mean ‘reduced take up of new unsecured debts’. This pattern appears to have changed in early 2012, hence the contrast.

          • Dave Postles

            Good analysis.

      • Alexwilliamz

        One word for this gvt: Reckless.

    • Dave Postles

      Mortgage interest rates are rising for variable-rate mortgages – quite substantially – putting pressure on some consumers.  There are headwinds against any deflationary tendency in the increase in petrol prices and the cost of food later in the year (in fact, already coming through).  The NHS is in a mess: FoI request has revealed the cost of leaders of practices spending only one day a week on medicine as they organize the new commissioning agencies, so employing loca at very high rates – costing millions.  There’s a total mess out there.

      • GuyM

        Fortunately I’m on a Nationwide mortgage fixed at base rate plus 2%, so 2.5%. Nothing the bank can do to get out of it either.

        General rates are rising as banks are not lending to each other and the Libor is going up.

        But then if all you politico types crucify banks for not lending to business, not lending mortgages, not paying enough tax and not recapitalising enough… all at the same time then what do you expect?

  • Private_Schultz

    I wouldn’t count your Burnham chicks until the Stafford report has been published.

    • derek

      Schultz, for you the post was interesting! now to the cooler!

Latest

  • News Ed Miliband statement on Woolwich murder

    Ed Miliband statement on Woolwich murder

    In a statement this evening, Ed Miliband said: “This is a truly appalling murder which will shock the entire country. “All of my thoughts are with the family and friends of the victim. “The British people will be horrified by what has happened in Woolwich. They will be united in believing that this terror on our streets cannot be allowed to stand. “The Labour Party will offer the Government our complete support in establishing the facts of what happened and [...]

    Read more →
  • News Equal marriage – How every Labour MP voted at every stage of the bill

    Equal marriage – How every Labour MP voted at every stage of the bill

    By Kirstin Hay

    With much jubilation, the 3rd reading of the same-sex marriage bill passed the House of Commons last night, carried through on the weight of Labour votes, but how have individual MPs voted on this bill? In the 2nd reading of the equal marriage bill, Labour MP voting totals were: 217 – for 22 – against 14 – non-voters For the third reading 192 – for 14 – against 49 – non-voters —————————————————————- 192 Labour MPs who voted yes on 3rd reading (9 didn’t [...]

    Read more →
  • News Ed Miliband’s Google Speech – full text

    Ed Miliband’s Google Speech – full text

    Speaking at the Google Big Tent event Ed Miliband said (please note, Miliband spoke without notes, but this is the text released by the party): It is great to be here inside the Google Big Tent. My sons Daniel and Sam think I do a very boring job, so they will be excited when I tell them I appeared along with the “Killer Robots” and the “Captain of the Moonshots” at your sessions. I’d like to start by showing you [...]

    Read more →
  • Comment Unions The chutzpah of Peter Mandelson – and why we need more trade unionists

    The chutzpah of Peter Mandelson – and why we need more trade unionists

    By Mark Seddon

    Lord Mandelson, or Baron Mandelson of Foy, as he should be referred to since he was packed off to the House of Lords by a small cabal, recently accused the Unite union of ‘manipulating selection procedures’ in the Labour Party. He went on to warn Ed Miliband that this ‘stores up danger for a future Labour government’. Irony has always been in as short supply as sheer chutzpah has been plentiful with old Mandy – but since his faithful disciple [...]

    Read more →
  • News Cameron says no more EU-turns – Media roundup: May 22nd, 2013

    Cameron says no more EU-turns – Media roundup: May 22nd, 2013

    Subscribers to our morning email get the best of LabourList – including the Media and blog round up – every weekday morning. If you were a subscriber you would have already received this in your inbox. You can sign up here. Cameron says no more EU-turns “After one of his most difficult weeks since becoming prime minister, David Cameron put in a polished and assured peformance on the Today programme this morning. The most notable line came on Europe, with Cameron [...]

    Read more →