Should Labour move right or left?

[DrNorm 10]

A bit of a strained point Tommo and you obviously didn't hear Frankie Boyle on Ed Milliband.

 

His heart was in the right place, unfortunately his nose and mouth weren't.

 

"Styling" Ed Miliband was useless ... like putting 26in rims on a wheelie bin.

 

C'mon, he's gone. We can laugh now.

[Mister M 1,622]

"Blue collar Conservatives"? I heard this term used on the radio this morning. I can't say I was listening, but it's obviously a term relating the skilled working class who have deserted Labour.

 

As I've said, the Labour party needs to bury differences and find ways to build on the common causes they share with blue collar workers (skilled working class/aspirational voters/non-union members).

After all what's the point of being a political party which focuses on the differences between its members and causing potential allies to defect to the other side?

 

There was a very good article in the paper on that point only a few days ago:http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/24/middle-class-living-standards

[taxman 12]

It doesn't matter whether they move left, right or stay the same.

 

Blair won three elections thanks to being media savvy, "Presidential", and having the support of Murdoch.

 

Now he is derided as being smug, corporate and in the pockets of bankers. People hate him because of his warmongering. They blame his light touch over the banks for ruining the world's economy.

 

Miliband comes in and isn't sleek, isn't smug and promises to combat the excesses of bankers....suddenly everyone is bemoaning the fact he isn't Blair.

 

What do people want?

 

I was talking to a floating voter a few nights ago. He mentioned that Miliband didn't seem Prime Ministerial material. He spoke of the bacon sandwich thing and when he gave 20p to a begger. We both agreed that Alistair Campbell wouldn't have let Blair within a 100 miles of either situation.

 

So that makes Blair, more Prime Ministerial, more suited for office apparently. So we'll just forget the wars then, as if they didn't happen, because , after all he looks good on tele.

 

There are people in Labour right now who want to go back to Blairism, because it was successful. But you couldn't fit a cigarette paper between New Labour and the Tories. That's why IMHO opinion the election went down to which PM candidate could walk in a straight line and eat a sandwich without looking like a muppet.

 

If the SNP had been standing in Northern England a lot of people would have voted for them, a proper alternative to the Westminster Elite.

 

I don't vote Labour anymore. On crucial policies I don't agree with them and as progressive movement they've dropped the ball because they want to win at all costs, even if that cost is their soul.

 

The new lot of leadership candidates are just the usual, ghastly metropolitan set.

[DrNorm 10]

But you couldn't fit a cigarette paper between New Labour and the Tories.

 

That's an exaggeration of course but believed by many.

 

The trick is to go as far left as possible and remain electable. If politicians don't represent the views of the electorate they'll never get elected. Sure, politicians have some power to lead, influence, persuade, change people's minds, but that's limited.

 

“There goes my people. I must follow them, for I am their leader.” (possibly said by Gandhi, but I could just be repeating misinformation from others)

 

The new lot of leadership candidates are just the usual, ghastly metropolitan set.

 

I fear you may be right. I hardly dare read what's happening.

[chem1st 10]

Labour should move left towards the centre, and occupy the ground previously occupied by people like Margaret Thatcher.

 

They should then go a a teeny weeny little bit further left and start a large council housing building program.

 

We'd have less poverty, more equal distribution of income, but still have increasing wealth and incomes for the rich, although also for the poor and middle, and a better standard of life for everyone, that would be getting better for all.

[*_ash_* 88]

Did anyone watch any of this the other night? (I'm guessing not many ) but not worthy of own thread I don't think)

 

1955 first televised election

 

I don't mean all of it of course! It's about 5 hours. The first 16 mins or so were quite interesting.

 

What I thought was interesting were the 'statements' made by the 2 main parties and the Liberals. Starts about 4m30s to about 16mins.

 

In this time, I think they wouldn't have all the TV advisors etc. that all the parties will have now, i.e. 'avoid saying this', 'DO say this' etc. (and it shows!), everything they said seemed to be much less inhibited by the knowledge now that a slip-up could 'go viral' in seconds.

 

However, I was surprised that the arguments and things weren't much different then.

[DrNorm 10]

Labour should move left towards the centre,

 

... a better standard of life for everyone, that would be getting better for all.

 

Hear hear. Unfortunately party politics (left and right) seems to be about division and appealing to partisan sections of the voters.

 

Bring on Direct Democracy. We have the technology. Let the people vote on issues, not for representatives once every five years. (Is there a smilie for "in dream land"?)

 

In the mean time, well said chem1st.

[alchresearch 214]

Not sure if it made the national news, but caught this on local news last night:

 

Labour objects to Derek Hatton bid to rejoin party

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32909887

 

I wonder what his game is? Jumping on the chance to take the party further left?

[SteveJ68 10]

I can't see why Labour must move right to win over the 24% who voted Tory. They need to target the 76% who didn't vote for the Tories. Move left, end this austerity bull and give people some bloody hope!

[tinfoilhat 11]

I can't see why Labour must move right to win over the 24% who voted Tory. They need to target the 76% who didn't vote for the Tories. Move left, end this austerity bull and give people some bloody hope!

 

They haven't got in being left wing for decades. The last time they were in they did sod all to curb corporate excess, but introduced a huge amount of benefits and stealth taxes.

[SteveJ68 10]

They haven't got in being left wing for decades. The last time they were in they did sod all to curb corporate excess, but introduced a huge amount of benefits and stealth taxes.

 

Let's see what happens when this mob do their worst in the next few years?

[I1L2T3 10]

OK it seems I do need to repeat some of those things.

 

In the 60-year period 1948-2007, there were 8 years in which per capita GDP went up more slowly than inflation (a "real terms recession"). The Tories were in power at the start of 7 of those years, and 3 of them were in the middle of a period of Tory rule (so you can't always blame it on "cleaning up Labour's mess", whereas you could blame the one exception on "cleaning up the Tories' mess").

 

The Attlee government turned a deficit into a surplus within three years of the end of WWII, largely by taxing those who could afford it (and spending the proceeds more or less judiciously). Whereas we're still running a deficit 7 or 8 years after the global financial crisis which, though bad enough, wasn't quite on the scale of WWII.

 

The biggest increase in public net debt, as a percentage of GDP, since 1946 occurred in 2012. The debt was bigger in 1997 (at the end of the previous Tory administration, which had run a deficit for 6 years on the trot) than in 2008, before the costs of the financial crisis had kicked in.

 

The Tories took us into the ERM, which cost us billions of pounds, whereas Labour kept us out of the Euro, which was a factor in mitigating the effects of the financial crisis here.

 

As for unemployment, it's also the case that every post-war Tory administration has left office with unemployment higher than when it came into power (I haven't looked at pre-war figures). You'll also recall that unemployment more than doubled within 5 years of the start of the Thatcher administration, and that Norman Lamont told us that high unemployment was a "price well worth paying" to keep inflation down.

 

In fact, unemployment was lower at the end of the Attlee administration than at the start, but I'll admit that that was a special case due to (a) the need for labour during the post-war reconstruction, and (b) that government being more or less Socialist, and therefore committed to full employment as a matter of policy.

 

Those are all facts.

 

We are always told that the Tories clear up the mess each time and leave the economy in better shape when they leave office. It's just propaganda that doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

 

The truth is the Tories are just as much of an economic wrecking ball as Labour. Both have been disastrous for this country.