Should Labour move right or left?

[JFKvsNixon 11]

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

 

Is this the same Blair that never lost an election? For all Blair's faults, and there were plenty of them, he knew how to win elections. The trick is, to work out why and how Blair won the elections.

[DrNorm 10]

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

 

An interesting article and although I wouldn't reject it out of hand the figures were compiled by polling organisation GQR Research, and we all know how accurate the pre-election polls turned out to be, so why should we trust pollsters?

 

Anyways, if the key to winning voters back isn't appealing to "aspirational" desires but addressing the biggest turn-off for voters in the poll (overspending and economic trust) then I'd still say the party needs to be more inclusive of the centre ground in the country. Territory that Blair was more comfortable in.

 

Tell me how the party will gain more trust on spending and the economy by becoming more left wing? The left aren't known for reigning in spending and supporting an enterprising economy.

[blake 10]

even before they had finished counting all the votes, but the rejection of Labour by the voters was already clear, you knew exactly how the left would react.

 

the left would blame Labour lost on having the wrong leader, even though the leader they did have was the most left wing one there was out of the 5 that ran in the 2010 leadership election apart from joke candidate Diane Abbott, the token Trot who never had a chance.

 

the left would blame the press and media in general and Rupert Murdoch in particular.

 

the left would blame Labour lost, because their policies were not left wing enough, even though Labour contested this election and ran on a platform relatively more left wing for 30 years. Every time Labour lose, Ken Livingstone comes out and says the reason why Labour lost was because the policies were not left wing enough. But when Labour win, Ken Livingstone never says that if Labour had been more left wing than they were, then they would have won by more. Ken Livingstone only says the Labour policies were not left wing enough, when Labour lose.

 

and of course what the left can be relied upon most of all to do when they lose, is blame the voters themselves, for being stupid. When really it is them, the left, that are stupid, for living in the past and not realising that the voters are not today anything like as left wing as they were decades ago and never will be again.

Edited May 22, 2015 by blake

[SteveJ68 10]

even before they had finished counting all the votes, but the rejection of Labour by the voters was already clear, you knew exactly how the left would react.

 

the left would blame Labour lost on having the wrong leader, even though the leader they did have was the most left wing one there was out of the 5 that ran in the 2010 leadership election apart from joke candidate Diane Abbott, the token Trot who never had a chance.

 

the left would blame the press and media in general and Rupert Murdoch in particular.

 

the left would blame Labour lost, because their policies were not left wing enough, even though Labour contested this election and ran on a platform relatively more left wing for 30 years. Every time Labour lose, Ken Livingstone comes out and says the reason why Labour lost was because the policies were not left wing enough. But when Labour win, Ken Livingstone never says that if Labour had been more left wing than they were, then they would have won by more. Ken Livingstone only says the Labour policies were not left wing enough, when Labour lose.

 

and of course what the left can be relied upon most of all to do when they lose, is blame the voters themselves, for being stupid. When really it is them, the left, that are stupid, for living in the past and not realising that the voters are not today anything like as left wing as they were decades ago and never will be again.

 

You forgot to mention that 85% of the electorate in Scotland didn't vote Tory, 73% in Wales and 58% in England. I think it's also proof that a lot of people who voted Tory suffer from Stockholm syndrome.

[L00b 441]

<...>

 

and of course what the left can be relied upon most of all to do when they lose, is blame the voters themselves, for being stupid. When really it is them, the left, that are stupid, for living in the past and not realising that the voters are not today anything like as left wing as they were decades ago and never will be again.

You forgot to mention that 85% of the electorate in Scotland didn't vote Tory, 73% in Wales and 58% in England. I think it's also proof that a lot of people who voted Tory suffer from Stockholm syndrome.

QED, I think.

[blake 10]

You forgot to mention that 85% of the electorate in Scotland didn't vote Tory, 73% in Wales and 58% in England. I think it's also proof that a lot of people who voted Tory suffer from Stockholm syndrome.

 

the Scottish SNP surge was nationalist surge, not a socialist surge and only a total cretin would read it as being anything else. The left have even constructed this re-reading of Scottish history by trying to claim that the SNP have always been this left wing party, and left wing politics is an integral part of the SNP's identity, when it isn't at all. The SNP is a nationalist party not a socialist one. When the SNP first burst on the scene in 1974 they looked and pitched nothing like the left-wing party they look and pitch now. They were partly going after the former 'Tartan Tory' vote who made Scotland majority Tory in the 1955 election, in those days. Now there is no more votes left there. That is why they started to pitch left and left. They called Labour the 'Red Tories' in the campaign but they meant Tory in the Unionist sense, not the right wing sense. Scotland has never been all that left wing and it is yet another leftist myth that it is, or ever has been, some sort of socialist citadel.

 

and I would not read the results in Wales as being anything like a vote for Labour or the left. Unlike in Scotland, the Tories have never been the majority party in Wales. But nevertheless he Tories had their best election in Wales for over 30 years and UKIP did better in Wales on vote share than they did in the rest of Britain. There is no way to read the May 7 election results in any other way except that they were even more of a total disaster for the left than they usually are.

[SteveJ68 10]

the Scottish SNP surge was nationalist surge, not a socialist surge and only a total cretin would read it as being anything else. The left have even constructed this re-reading of Scottish history by trying to claim that the SNP have always been this left wing party, and left wing politics is an integral part of the SNP's identity, when it isn't at all. The SNP is a nationalist party not a socialist one. When the SNP first burst on the scene in 1974 they looked and pitched nothing like the left-wing party they look and pitch now. They were partly going after the former 'Tartan Tory' vote who made Scotland majority Tory in the 1955 election, in those days. Now there is no more votes left there. That is why they started to pitch left and left. They called Labour the 'Red Tories' in the campaign but they meant Tory in the Unionist sense, not the right wing sense. Scotland has never been all that left wing and it is yet another leftist myth that it is, or ever has been, some sort of socialist citadel.

 

and I would not read the results in Wales as being anything like a vote for Labour or the left. Unlike in Scotland, the Tories have never been the majority party in Wales. But nevertheless he Tories had their best election in Wales for over 30 years and UKIP did better in Wales on vote share than they did in the rest of Britain. There is no way to read the May 7 election results in any other way except that they were even more of a total disaster for the left than they usually are.

 

I disagree and so do others.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/09/upshot/how-labour-gained-votes-but-still-lost-seats.html?_r=3&abt=0002&abg=0

 

http://uk.businessinsider.com/uk-general-election-vote-statistics-how-the-left-gained-2015-5

Edited May 22, 2015 by SteveJ68

[crazybaby 10]

I can only come at this from experience after living in Scotland for 20 years from the late 70's (I have two Scottish sons) I knew a few members of the SNP and can say through experience that they were definitely a right wing party.

 

http://labourlist.org/2014/03/a-message-for-ruk-the-snp-is-a-centre-right-party/

 

My son who lives in Scotland voted SNP to give Labour a bloody nose , does that sound familiar ?

[blake 10]

it is nothing short of ridiculous that they are trying to claim Labour's totally miniscule and derisory increase in vote share, when there were millions of votes going begging, represents some sort of advance for Labour. The only question is whether Labour's abject showing in 2015 was worse than when they also got totally stuffed in 1987, or 1983. I would say worse than 1987, but not quite as bad as 1983. But quite a close call.

[truman 10]

You forgot to mention that 85% of the electorate in Scotland didn't vote Tory, 73% in Wales and 58% in England. I think it's also proof that a lot of people who voted Tory suffer from Stockholm syndrome.

 

Even less voted for Labour....

[Stoatwobbler 10]

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/liz-kendall-to-punch-uks-last-coal-miner-2015052298524

 

LABOUR leadership hopeful Liz Kendall has promised to punch the last surviving British coal miner hard in the face.

 

Kendall said: “This miner, who lives in a terraced home on benefits and doesn’t even own a car, represents everything that Labour needs to leave behind. He worked down the mines for more than 40 years and never invested in the property market, never started his own business, no aspiration whatsoever. It will be my pleasure to deck him.”

 

Once Kendall has punched 62-year-old Roy Hobbs, she will confiscate the instruments of the Colliery Brass Band and melt them down to make a statue of Alistair Campbell.

 

Hobbs said: “She’s Labour, so I’m sure it’s for the best.”

[anarchist 10]

even before they had finished counting all the votes, but the rejection of Labour by the voters was already clear, you knew exactly how the left would react.

 

the left would blame Labour lost on having the wrong leader, even though the leader they did have was the most left wing one there was out of the 5 that ran in the 2010 leadership election apart from joke candidate Diane Abbott, the token Trot who never had a chance.

 

the left would blame the press and media in general and Rupert Murdoch in particular.

 

the left would blame Labour lost, because their policies were not left wing enough, even though Labour contested this election and ran on a platform relatively more left wing for 30 years. Every time Labour lose, Ken Livingstone comes out and says the reason why Labour lost was because the policies were not left wing enough. But when Labour win, Ken Livingstone never says that if Labour had been more left wing than they were, then they would have won by more. Ken Livingstone only says the Labour policies were not left wing enough, when Labour lose.

 

and of course what the left can be relied upon most of all to do when they lose, is blame the voters themselves, for being stupid. When really it is them, the left, that are stupid, for living in the past and not realising that the voters are not today anything like as left wing as they were decades ago and never will be again.

 

The biggest factor in Labours loss was Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling. Labour might have been able to bluster about worldwide recession in 2007/2008 but not the crazy spending they did trying to buy votes before the 2010 election. It was all to no avail as Labour lost that election and also paved the way to lose the 2015 election as well.

 

Since 2010 the Tories have got respect for creating jobs, and cutting the deficit. Labour lost further credibility by telling everyone that Osbourn he was getting it wrong whilst he cleared up their mess and created 2 million new jobs.The Libdems got destroyed. What has changed since 2010 is the Libdem seats were mainly taken by the Tories. UKIP took votes off everyone without gaining seats and the SNP destroyed Labour in Scotland.

 

That spending spree in 2009/2010 destroyed Labours credibility to manage the economy and handing LD seats to the Tories means that the mountain they have to climb is so much higher. Labour might well get another million votes in 2020, but unless they get those votes in seats they don't already hold they will be in opposition for a very long time.

Edited May 22, 2015 by anarchist