Should Labour move right or left?

[Anna B 1,401]

You've confused me now Anna..do we have a good life or not..?

 

I think we've peaked.

Prior to the crash few people were in want. Most people had reached a reasonable level of affluence and had a good life.

After the crash, things started going downhill again, especially for the poor.

 

Many may think it hasn't affected them, but people simply won't have realised it yet. It will affect most people eventually.

 

For example, care for the elderly has been cut to the bone, but of course many people have years to go before that affects them. Similarly, pension annuity returns have reached an all time low, (they've reduced by more than half) so they will also be poorer in old age. If you have a chronic illness, the funds are not there to support you, and day centres have closed.

You may not need them now, but you probably will in the future but they won't be there.

Many libraries have gone, sports facilities have closed, and other things are being priced beyond people's means. There are many examples, and many more to come.

 

Of course most of us still have a reasonable life, for which we should be grateful, but we ought to think more about the future and what will be left, as austerity creeps ever higher up the food chain. Once it's gone it'll be gone for good.

 

It won't bother the richest in society, politicians included, but the rest of us are going to have a very different outlook to the one we're used to.

As the politicians privatise the NHS and take a knife to everything else, bear that in mind.

[sgtkate 10]

I think we've peaked.

Prior to the crash few people were in want. Most people had reached a reasonable level of affluence and had a good life.

After the crash, things started going downhill again, especially for the poor.

 

Many may think it hasn't affected them, but people simply won't have realised it yet. It will affect most people eventually.

 

For example, care for the elderly has been cut to the bone, but of course many people have years to go before that affects them. Similarly, pension annuity returns have reached an all time low, (they've reduced by more than half) so they will also be poorer in old age. If you have a chronic illness, the funds are not there to support you, and day centres have closed.

You may not need them now, but you probably will in the future but they won't be there.

Many libraries have gone, sports facilities have closed, and other things are being priced beyond people's means. There are many examples, and many more to come.

 

Of course most of us still have a reasonable life, for which we should be grateful, but we ought to think more about the future and what will be left, as austerity creeps ever higher up the food chain. Once it's gone it'll be gone for good.

 

It won't bother the richest in society, politicians included, but the rest of us are going to have a very different outlook to the one we're used to.

As the politicians privatise the NHS and take a knife to everything else, bear that in mind.

 

Anna, this is very much how I feel. I am certain that a vast number of people are incapable of imagining their life any different to it is at present. They cannot comprehend that they might be seriously injured and unable to work, that they might get made redundant and not be able to find a comparably paid job quickly, they haven't yet retired for example. At present I am financially better off under the Tories. I have a reasonable number of shares through my company, I have a house I rent out, I'm a higher rate tax payer, I have private healthcare, all the things that the Tories like and subsidise. But I'm not ignorant enough to think that I all have is set in stone and it wouldn't take much bad luck to take it all away. Unless you have enough in the bank to cover you until you die, everyone single one of us is at risk of falling into the groups that the Tories are currently taking most things away from.

[Eater Sundae 12]

I think we've peaked.

Prior to the crash few people were in want. Most people had reached a reasonable level of affluence and had a good life.

After the crash, things started going downhill again, especially for the poor.

 

Many may think it hasn't affected them, but people simply won't have realised it yet. It will affect most people eventually.

 

For example, care for the elderly has been cut to the bone, but of course many people have years to go before that affects them. Similarly, pension annuity returns have reached an all time low, (they've reduced by more than half) so they will also be poorer in old age. If you have a chronic illness, the funds are not there to support you, and day centres have closed.

You may not need them now, but you probably will in the future but they won't be there.

Many libraries have gone, sports facilities have closed, and other things are being priced beyond people's means. There are many examples, and many more to come.

 

Of course most of us still have a reasonable life, for which we should be grateful, but we ought to think more about the future and what will be left, as austerity creeps ever higher up the food chain. Once it's gone it'll be gone for good.

 

It won't bother the richest in society, politicians included, but the rest of us are going to have a very different outlook to the one we're used to.

As the politicians privatise the NHS and take a knife to everything else, bear that in mind.

 

Re bib. Were we in this position because we had actually achieved the level, or was it really on the "never never", and we are now settling back into our true position.

[truman 10]

I'll try to get a full list which typically I cannot find at the moment...anyone else who finds it please post. The ones from London are below. Annoying I can only find the full UK dataset on google docs which is blocked from my office :

 

Croydon Central

Hendon

 

You'll have to extrapolate the data UK wide from the 2 seats in London.

both of those seats above would have gone to Labour had all the Green votes gone to Labour. As already stated, I'm not saying that would have done or trying to take anything away from the Tories, they clearly won, just interesting stats that's all.

 

Your numbers are wrong with the second one..the tories won Hendon with 49% of the vote..24,328

Labour were second with 42% 20,604.. the greens only got 2% 1015..even if the green vote had all gone Labour's way they would still have been beaten

 

You're right about Croydon though...but it's all what ifs and maybes isn't it..where would the UKIP vote have gone if they weren't around..?

[Grandad.Malky 11]

Another five years of the Tories should concentrate minds if the announcements of the last few days are anything to go by.

 

Lets hope you are right … Thatcher managed to get 3 bites of the cherry .. god forbid this lot get a 3rd term.

 

 

 

On the bright side Clegg got his comeuppance , he should have told them 5 years ago where to shove their coalition instead of wheeling out all that nonsense about putting the country before his parts … what a load of XXXXXXX

[Stoatwobbler 10]

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/labour-accused-of-abandoning-upper-middle-class-2015051498278

 

SENIOR Labour politicians have called on the party to reconnect with its core supporters, people who have nice big houses.

 

High-ranking figures have lined up to criticise former leader Ed Miliband for alienating the bankers, entrepreneurs and second-home owners who have traditionally formed the basis of Labour’s support.

 

Tristram Hunt said: “By banging on about the cost of living and the NHS, and ignoring the plight of hardworking families with holiday homes and cleaners, we forgot about the very people we are supposed to represent.

 

“Who is going to stand up for hedge fund managers and venture capital firms if not Labour?”

[evil woman 10]

Lets hope you are right … Thatcher managed to get 3 bites of the cherry .. god forbid this lot get a 3rd term.

 

 

 

On the bright side Clegg got his comeuppance , he should have told them 5 years ago where to shove their coalition instead of wheeling out all that nonsense about putting the country before his parts … what a load of XXXXXXX

 

Thatcher got 3 bites of the cherry because the electorate prefered her to the alternative. Her policies were more popular than Labour's alternative.

 

Cameron will very likely get the option of a third bite because his policies are more popular with the voters than Labour's alternative. Indeed the only time in the last 4 decades when voters sided with Labour was when Blair made a credible alternative to Tory policy by adopting most of it.

 

I have to laugh about the Clegg issue round here. You guys spent 5 years slagging off a minor party and in the end handed most of their seats to the Tories. :hihi:

 

The poll here is an interesting one. The alternatives are not realistic. The options should be RIGHT or DOWN. That's really a dilema for you isn't it? You can appoint a leader who represents your views and lose, or appoint one who doesn't and actually have a prospect of winning. The trouble is Blair now earns about £10 million a year. Even if you could afford to bring him back, he probably votes Conservative anyhow.

Edited May 14, 2015 by evil woman

[sgtkate 10]

Your numbers are wrong with the second one..the tories won Hendon with 49% of the vote..24,328

Labour were second with 42% 20,604.. the greens only got 2% 1015..even if the green vote had all gone Labour's way they would still have been beaten

 

You're right about Croydon though...but it's all what ifs and maybes isn't it..where would the UKIP vote have gone if they weren't around..?

 

Truman, apologies. I now worry about my basic maths skills. Lets hope the Tories improve general reading, writing and arithmetic huh?

[DrNorm 10]

Should Labour move right or left?

 

Well, if they want to get elected, their ambition must be to represent the country. Its seems plain that the country has rejected Labour as being too left wing.

 

To be electable, Labour need not reject it's core supporters, but must find a way to be more inclusive of the centre ground and "aspirational" voters.

 

There was a time when I wouldn't have objected to being called a "Blairite". I'm not so sure now, however I do believe he understands the electorate far better than any of the current or potential Labour leadership.

 

In an Observer article a couple of weeks back headed "Labour has to be for ambition as well as compassion" he wrote "'Hard working families' don't just want us to celebrate their hard work; they want to know that by hard work and effort they can do well, rise up, achieve. They want to be better off and they need to know that we don't just tolerate that, we support it."

 

The problem Labour seems to have is that ambition and aspiration sounds too competitive, capitalistic. Well I don't see that contradiction. We can aspire to be strong, individually and collectively, in order to be in a position to care.

 

We need a strong economy to meet the needs of the people, but in order to have a strong economy we need to encourage a strong aspirational workforce within an enterprising economy. That's as far right as I'd go though. There's a difference between entrepreneurs and speculators. There has to be appropriate regulation of markets and less of the extreme inequality in pay and reward structures.

 

As much as the Tories are too far right of the centre ground that most people feel comfortable with, the reason they got a parliamentary majority is that Labour were even further left of that centre. They frightened away too many of their potential voters

 

By the way. When Ed Miliband got elected as leader, I laid a bet with PaddyPower that Labour would lose the election WITHOUT Ed Miliband as leader. My prediction was that the party would realise their mistake, but oust him too late to make up lost ground.

 

Well I was right about the first part, Labour did lose the election, but wrong about the party coming to its senses prior to the election.

 

It isn't showing many signs of seeing the error of their ways now. I hope the unions don't tighten their grip on the party making it more left wing. We'll not see a Labour government next time around if that happens. I'll put money on it.

 

[A Labour Party member]

[DrNorm 10]

I guess what is perceived as the centre ground, and what lies to the left and right of that, is very subjective.

 

Here's the point though; given that many in the Labour Party see the election defeat as "the greatest crisis that the Labour Party has ever faced since it was created" there has to be deep reflection on how policies can be developed to reach a wider slice of the electorate.

 

So Blair wins 3 elections and Miliband none. Which way should the party move to appeal to more voters?

 

If party members cannot find ways to develop common cause even if they are not at exactly the same point on the political spectrum then it is doomed. As Jon Cruddas has said of this crisis "it is epic in scale".

 

The survival of the party is in question if those currently at the right of the party's centre are perceived as "Thatcherite".

[Mister M 1,594]

Should Labour move right or left?

 

Well, if they want to get elected, their ambition must be to represent the country. Its seems plain that the country has rejected Labour as being too left wing.

 

To be electable, Labour need not reject it's core supporters, but must find a way to be more inclusive of the centre ground and "aspirational" voters.

 

There was a time when I wouldn't have objected to being called a "Blairite". I'm not so sure now, however I do believe he understands the electorate far better than any of the current or potential Labour leadership.

 

In an Observer article a couple of weeks back headed "Labour has to be for ambition as well as compassion" he wrote "'Hard working families' don't just want us to celebrate their hard work; they want to know that by hard work and effort they can do well, rise up, achieve. They want to be better off and they need to know that we don't just tolerate that, we support it."

 

The problem Labour seems to have is that ambition and aspiration sounds too competitive, capitalistic. Well I don't see that contradiction. We can aspire to be strong, individually and collectively, in order to be in a position to care.

 

We need a strong economy to meet the needs of the people, but in order to have a strong economy we need to encourage a strong aspirational workforce within an enterprising economy. That's as far right as I'd go though. There's a difference between entrepreneurs and speculators. There has to be appropriate regulation of markets and less of the extreme inequality in pay and reward structures.

 

As much as the Tories are too far right of the centre ground that most people feel comfortable with, the reason they got a parliamentary majority is that Labour were even further left of that centre. They frightened away too many of their potential voters

 

By the way. When Ed Miliband got elected as leader, I laid a bet with PaddyPower that Labour would lose the election WITHOUT Ed Miliband as leader. My prediction was that the party would realise their mistake, but oust him too late to make up lost ground.

 

Well I was right about the first part, Labour did lose the election, but wrong about the party coming to its senses prior to the election.

 

It isn't showing many signs of seeing the error of their ways now. I hope the unions don't tighten their grip on the party making it more left wing. We'll not see a Labour government next time around if that happens. I'll put money on it.

 

[A Labour Party member]

 

It's interesting that straight after their defeat, newspaper pundits and Labour Party grandees (like Mandelson, Alan Johnson) assumed that 'aspiration' was a key factor in Labour's loss.

Well not according to voters. Research by the party has concluded that voters didn't perceive Labour as being hostile to aspiration, rather, that is a fiction in the minds of those pundits and grandees who have a Blairite agenda.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/voters-dont-actually-care-about-labours-attitude-to-aspiration-poll-finds-10266729.html

[L00b 441]

I think we've peaked.

I think you're wrong. Or, well, your usual half-empty cup self (come on Anna, have a smile )

 

I believe the current ills throughout Western economies are caused primarily by their age pyramids, commonly still very heavy with baby boomers (all 70 this year), most of whom will now be in retirement, with ever more healthcare requirements as years go by, and ever more dependent on State resources.

 

The financial (and economic, by ricochet) crisis of 2008 has of course worsened this situation, particularly as most baby boomers got to 65 (typical pensionable age) in 2010, but I think will turn into a 'long' blip rather than durably.

 

Once most of them are gone, I daresay the pull on state resources will lighten measurably. Labour could do worse than anticipate the effect which the gradual disappearance of baby boomers over the next 20-odd years will have on the country, so much in socio-economic terms as in terms of resource management and allocation. After all, common wisdom has it that many pensioners vote Tory, that's a demographic which Labour would do well to try and regain.

Edited May 21, 2015 by L00b