Ed Miliband Has Wrecked The Labour Party.

[Uptowngirl 10]

in general elections in the uk, turnout has always been over 50% - in the last election it was something like 66% - it has only been below 60% once since the second world war

 

but you are broadly right - generally speaking turnover in general elections is on an historic downward trend - in the 1990's it was in the mid 70's in percentage terms

 

i think there is much more apathy than there was - probably due to disillusionment in general with politics and politicians and the lack of anyone with any real charisma or personality - i think a lot of ukip's recent success is due to the personality of their leader as much as anything else - if ed miliband was ukip's leader do you think they would be as successful?

 

for all tony blair's faults, you can't deny he had both charisma and a strong personality (well, you could, but you'd be wrong) - he was also blessed with a divided and demoralised conservative party

 

i quite like ed miliband - he doesn't get a fair crack of the media whip, but he doesn't always help himself - the battle with the unions is long overdue - blair was the only leader strong enough and powerful enough to do it and he bottled it - it'll be a long hard battle for milliband, but, for the labour party's sake he needs to be successful

 

i think he does need to start getting some policies made clearer though - particularly with regard to the economy/taxation/benefits

 

he hasn't wrecked the labour party though - at least, not all by himself - but, as Happ Hazard posted earlier - there aren't really a lot of serious alternatives - i think it is as well to stick with him for the next general election and, if he isn't successful, they need a clean break with the past and get someone who isn't tainted with the Brown years

 

I'm not sure that is strictly true. Whilst only 65-70% of folks actually vote there are reasons for that.

 

There will be folk who just can't be bothered because they live in a seat where a swing of 30% would be required. If that swing were down to 5-10% the voters tend to take an interest.

[alchresearch 220]

He's the caretaker leader until they're ready for power again, just like IDS, Hague, Menzies Campbell, and all the others.

 

There was a Yougov poll yesterday asking how much you liked or disliked the parties and their leaders. Should make interesting reading when published.

[Manlinose 10]

I'm not sure that is strictly true. Whilst only 65-70% of folks actually vote there are reasons for that.

 

There will be folk who just can't be bothered because they live in a seat where a swing of 30% would be required. If that swing were down to 5-10% the voters tend to take an interest.

 

you are right of course, but that has always been the case

 

when i was growing up in barnsley, the turnout was usually 70+% even though the election of a labour mp was a foregone conclusion - my mum always voted conservative, even though she was a socialist, because she felt sorry for them - in the last general election it was 57%

 

i think the turnout has fallen because more people, as you say, can't be bothered to vote - not just because their vote doesn't make a difference in terms of who is elected as their mp, but, i think, more because people are less interested in politics generally - in barnsley i suspect it was because the usual labour voter just couldn't bring themselves to vote labour, knowing that the party would win the seat anyway

 

in the 60's & 70's, most people voting had lived through World War 2 and a lot saw it as some sort of duty to cast their vote

 

i think that, to a large extent, that has been lost - many younger people (my generation included) see it as an inconvenience - it has never been easier to vote in a general election for most people, but fewer people do it

 

you are right that, the closer the contest, the more interest there is, generally the higher you would expect the turnout to be, but, again, that has always been the case

 

i just think that there is more apathy these days - maybe it is because people are more aware of how little difference their vote makes, or maybe it is because we are more distrusting/cynical of our politicians

[retep 69]

Thank the unions for electing him.

 

Thank you Unions:)

[algy 11]

Plus, I read recently that Blair's son is a rising star. Prescott's too. Nepotism is alive and well.

So is Jack Straw's lad.

[Jim Hardie 557]

He's a back stabber and he's demonstrated it three times now.

First his brother over the leadership, then the unions who voted him in and got shafted in return and then Cameron over the Syria vote.

[Rampent 10]

I'm afraid it's my stammer fetish...

 

---------- Post added 16-09-2013 at 01:37 ----------

 

Apart from being re-elected in the 50's, you mean?

 

He did things . .

[1heckofaguy 10]

He talks funny and gonads. Might as well bring back Mr Foot. Labour will never gain power under this fool. Nobody trusts this berk. Labour are ruined.

 

Opines?

 

Labour destroyed itself by doing away with clause 4.

 

As for Milliband I don't dislike him, he's just not leader material; I don't see him as primeminister.

[Rampent 10]

This is true. But it took a while for the effects to make themselves known. There are still plenty of tribal Labour voters from before, but more and more of them are figuring out the truth, and more and more of them are dying off. And at this point, there isn't anyone from the previous era left in the party who can become leader and steer them right. So they're in a bad way, counting on public sector workers (dwindling in number), immigrants (many of whom are really natural conservatives), academics and students and benefit claimants (most of whom don't vote). It doesn't add up to a winning number IMO. Labour badly needs to attract the votes of relatively low paid private sector workers that used to be their core voter base, but their current policies really don't appeal to this demographic. They are too tied up with towing the progressive line because that is the view of most of the people in the party itself.

 

I can't believe this!! I actually agree with you!!

 

---------- Post added 16-09-2013 at 21:43 ----------

 

Labour destroyed itself by doing away with clause 4.

 

As for Milliband I don't dislike him, he's just not leader material; I don't see him as primeminister.

 

He is useless. The general populace know he is weirdo light weight. Labour are finished until a new order come in. It's all rather depressing.

[banjodeano 36]

He talks funny and gonads. Might as well bring back Mr Foot. Labour will never gain power under this fool. Nobody trusts this berk. Labour are ruined.

 

Opines?

The thing is....its not the Labour party is it, its just watered down Toryism...we need true Socialist Labour, with true socialist values, where the working man thinks about his fellow man, not just what he can get for himself

[Rampent 10]

The thing is....its not the Labour party is it, its just watered down Toryism...we need true Socialist Labour, with true socialist values, where the working man thinks about his fellow man, not just what he can get for himself

 

Would be nice mate. Never going to happen now. Thatcher changed the whole psyche of the country.

[banjodeano 36]

Would be nice mate. Never going to happen now. Thatcher changed the whole psyche of the country.

perhaps....but i am wondering, that in this recession people will realise what true socialist values mean........yeah i can live in hope