The end of the Labour party

Yes, I think Labour would have won in 1997 under John Smith. Bear in mind that it's often Governments that lose elections as much as oppositions win them.

At the time the Tories were riven with divisions over Europe, mired in allegations of sleaze (sexual and financial), laughed at by the press, and had been in power for 18 years.

I do think under Smith there wouldn't have been an Iraq war (which still haunts the party to this day). And although Smith was traditionally on the right of the party, many of the policies associated with Blair would possibly not have been pursued, and the way that Blair and his allies carried out their politics turned people off.

A big part of me thinks that the election of Corbyn to the leadership of the Labour Party is a reaction to the Blair years, and all that they represented.

In many ways Corbyn is a decent man, and I don't think it's so much that his left wing views aren't popular (rail nationalisation is popular with the public); I think it's moret hat he's not seen as credible or competent.[/QUOTE]

 

The media have seen to that.

 

Do you honestly think that the majority of politicians are credible or competent? At least Corbyn is seen as decent and honest.

 

There are degrees of credibility and competence, and unfortunately for Corbyn there are a number of factors weighing against him. Chiefly that he is sometimes at odds with policies of his own party (e.g. Trident). He is often at odds with members of his own backbenchers (when he was on the backbenches, he was a permanent oppositionist to the leadership). He is testy and irritable with many parts of the media, who I agree aren't giving him a fair hearing, but who he should at least be professional with.

I think there is probably an in built bias among the media against anyone who has views that are considered to the left of the 'Overton Window', and that is unfortunate....But the paradox is that after the financial crash of 2008, when there was a crisis at the heart of the economic system in many Western countries, logically one would expect social democratic parties across Europe to do well, yet many of the electorate in those countries have moved rightwards. Exactly why this is, I don't know.

 

---------- Post added 24-02-2017 at 21:58 ----------

 

I struggle to decide who the Labour party stands for anymore,i used to think they were for the working class but i gave up on that many years ago.Some of their policies i agree with and some policies i am strongly against.I look at all the major parties and i cannot see that any of them represent me.With all due respect to yourself it was champagne socialists that turned me away from the Labour party,i believe that the Labour party cannot be a party for everybody.It needs to decide were it wants to be and who it wants to represent,at the moment it trys to be left,right and centre.The tories appear to have chosen their direction which seems to be to the right again.They may never get my vote back but i am one of those they need to get back if they ever want to get into power again.I want a leader to the left but not as far as jeremy corbyn and not as right as blair and brown and to be more of an authoritarian rather than a liberal.Tony Blairs government was a big let down for me,i cannot forgive the Labour party for that.

 

That's interesting, you're saying that the Labour Party cannot be a party for everyone, (and I accept that from any Government there will be winners and losers). However that never seems to be a problem for the Conservatives. Indeed when Theresa May said that she wanted to govern for the whole country on the doors of 10 Downing Street, many in the press congratulated her for being inclusive.

I also take the point about 'champagne socialists', but I do think that is oversold way too much. All political parties have to pull support from everywhere they can. Historically and presently, both Conservatives and Labour have. The vitriol against champagne socialists is way more pronounced than 'cloth cap Tories', who never seem to get mentioned, let alone lampooned in the press.

 

There are degrees of credibility and competence, and unfortunately for Corbyn there are a number of factors weighing against him. Chiefly that he is sometimes at odds with policies of his own party (e.g. Trident). He is often at odds with members of his own backbenchers (when he was on the backbenches, he was a permanent oppositionist to the leadership). He is testy and irritable with many parts of the media, who I agree aren't giving him a fair hearing, but who he should at least be professional with.

I think there is probably an in built bias among the media against anyone who has views that are considered to the left of the 'Overton Window', and that is unfortunate....But the paradox is that after the financial crash of 2008, when there was a crisis at the heart of the economic system in many Western countries, logically one would expect social democratic parties across Europe to do well, yet many of the electorate in those countries have moved rightwards. Exactly why this is, I don't know.

 

---------- Post added 24-02-2017 at 21:58 ----------

 

 

That's interesting, you're saying that the Labour Party cannot be a party for everyone, (and I accept that from any Government there will be winners and losers). However that never seems to be a problem for the Conservatives. Indeed when Theresa May said that she wanted to govern for the whole country on the doors of 10 Downing Street, many in the press congratulated her for being inclusive.

I also take the point about 'champagne socialists', but I do think that is oversold way too much. All political parties have to pull support from everywhere they can. Historically and presently, both Conservatives and Labour have. The vitriol against champagne socialists is way more pronounced than 'cloth cap Tories', who never seem to get mentioned, let alone lampooned in the press.

 

I can only judge the Labour party on my own experiences,i have never voted tory and celebrated when Labour won in 1997 and expected my life to be much improved.I was some what surprised when four years into blairs government i found my fortunes and finances going in the opposite direction.How could this be, i voted in a labour government as a working class lad i should be better off.I was actually taking less wages home every month than i had under the tory government.Shock horror and shame i actually started missing Maggie Thatchers government.I wasn't the only one that this happened too has the desertion of the working class from the Labour party has shown this to be true.I am not sure who the cloth cap tory mps are to be honest.Seeing as south yorkshire is tory free as far as i know in regards to mp's it is hard to say who the cloth cap tories are.You never see tories protesting in the street but i see champagne socialists protesting all the time so it makes them more prominent in the public eye.

I don't understand the poll. The question is 'Where will Labour be a year from now?'

The first option is 'Intact with Jeremy Corbyn in charge.'

Another is 'The matter will still be unresolved.'

a) What matter?

b) What is the difference?

 

I can only judge the Labour party on my own experiences,i have never voted tory and celebrated when Labour won in 1997 and expected my life to be much improved.I was some what surprised when four years into blairs government i found my fortunes and finances going in the opposite direction.How could this be, i voted in a labour government as a working class lad i should be better off.I was actually taking less wages home every month than i had under the tory government.Shock horror and shame i actually started missing Maggie Thatchers government.I wasn't the only one that this happened too has the desertion of the working class from the Labour party has shown this to be true.I am not sure who the cloth cap tory mps are to be honest.Seeing as south yorkshire is tory free as far as i know in regards to mp's it is hard to say who the cloth cap tories are.You never see tories protesting in the street but i see champagne socialists protesting all the time so it makes them more prominent in the public eye.

 

I think you misread my post, I wasn't referring to 'cloth cap Tory MPs'. I was responding to your complaint about the champagne socialists as one of the reasons you said you left the Labour Party. I responded by saying that all political parties pull support from everywhere - there are champagne socialists for Labour and cloth cap Tories for the Conservatives.

 

Plenty of people protest a lot of the time, and without seeing a party flag, or a banner I don't know who they vote for. The recent issues of fracking, and HS2, and the expansion of Heathrow for example, brought many Tories out of their houses and caused them to demonstrate. Good for them I say.

I was actually being nice to you.

It must be my northern grittiness coming through.

Are you going to bother answering the question?

---------- Post added 25-02-2017 at 00:40 ----------

At least Corbyn is seen as decent and honest.

No he isn't.

He's an IRA supporting pink tinged lefty. Hes not honest and hes certainly not decent unless you think supporting attacks on the UK and it's armed forces is "decent".

Corbyn? I'd take great pleasure in throwing the odious little **** off my land if ever he was fool enough to canvass on my door.

 

I think there is probably an in built bias among the media against anyone who has views that are considered to the left of the 'Overton Window', and that is unfortunate....But the paradox is that after the financial crash of 2008, when there was a crisis at the heart of the economic system in many Western countries, logically one would expect social democratic parties across Europe to do well, yet many of the electorate in those countries have moved rightwards. Exactly why this is, I don't know.

__________________________________________________________________

 

I think the Tories did a fine job of brainwashing the general public into blaming Labour for the financial crash of 2008 with their oft repeated Mantra about 'the mess that Labour left us in.'

 

For over 2 years this was repeated by every single Conservative spokesman in every single media interview, whether about economics or not. To such an extent that it literally brainwashed a lot of people into believing it, and, against all the evidence to the contrary, some still repeat it even now.

 

Labour did not crash the economy, the banks did, and not just in the Uk but all over Europe, but that was a much more complex issue and harder to reduce to a pithy, easily digestible soundbite, indeed it was probably necessary to research online to understand what had happened, as the mainstream media didn't offer much in the way of explanation.

 

It has made the public distrusting of Labour, and the media vendetta has made them distrusting of (again, oft repeated 'leftwing',) Jeremy Corbyn. Added to this we have the internal struggle between the Corbynistas and the Blairites who do not seem to realise that since the 2008 crash the 'centre ground' has moved to the left, and that pre-crash Blairite thinking ('we're all middle class now') has undergone a sea change. IMO it is they who are out of step, not Corbyn.

 

With all this confusion and dissent is it surprising that the extreme right wing who are obnoxious, but offer simplistic solutions are doing well.

Indeed, and I think banjodeano realises that, but maybe thinks admitting that they got it wrong is a sign of weakness (whereas I feel freely admitting your mistakes is an indication of a strong character) and so is stubbornly sticking to their guns, which is making them look rather foolish..

ok...i got it wrong, i made a mistake with my big gob, now are you happy, are you happy that i have publicly flagellated myself :hihi:

ok...i got it wrong, i made a mistake with my big gob, now are you happy, are you happy that i have publicly flagellated myself

A simple 'oh yes sorry I meant deficit, not debt' would have sufficed, no flagellation necessary (although I'm aware that would have somewhat negated your original point, as the deficit hasn't doubled).

A simple 'oh yes sorry I meant deficit, not debt' would have sufficed, no flagellation necessary (although I'm aware that would have somewhat negated your original point, as the deficit hasn't doubled).

The debt has grown massively under the Conservatives.

The debt has grown massively under the Conservatives.

The debt can't decrease until we no longer have a deficit but have a surplus instead, which presumably can then start paying down the actual debt.

The debt was therefore going to grow until the deficit was tackled. The increase in debt is therefore nothing to do with Conservative policies, but a consequence of having a large deficit, which they have reduced.

I'm sure you are not suggesting that the debt would have not grown as much under Labour?

shes used worse language than that

She's not on here you are. By all accounts she's been subject to lots of racial and gender abuse. She's also very visible which increases her vulnerability, you're anonymous behind your keyboard

The debt can't decrease until we no longer have a deficit but have a surplus instead, which presumably can then start paying down the actual debt.

 

The debt was therefore going to grow until the deficit was tackled. The increase in debt is therefore nothing to do with Conservative policies, but a consequence of having a large deficit, which they have reduced.

 

I'm sure you are not suggesting that the debt would have not grown as much under Labour?

Probably. Yet it's apparently OK to say Labour caused the debt, and repeat it endlessly, when you know as well as I do that it would have been pretty much the same under the Conservatives.