Should Labour move right or left?

[tinfoilhat 11]

That was the point of the second part of my post above... I think Labour have been trying to appeal to a very small part of the electorate..they came across as seeming to demonise anyone who had a job with a reasonable income..you can't win elections like that..

 

You're dead right. I voted labour in 97 because I was optimistic on what he'd bring. I'm going to ask you because I know you know and I can't remember - how many are actually on ZHC and what percentage of the work force is that? And lastly (this bit you won't know) what percentage of those on ZHC voted and voted labour? Not enough to make a difference clearly.

 

Way back in 93 I had to write an essay on why labour lost the 92 election. If things are as truly awful as Anna and mecky, sorry boomer and the London protesters think it is you have to wonder why labour, despite the obvious handicap of ed milliband, didn't win.

[truman 10]

You're dead right. I voted labour in 97 because I was optimistic on what he'd bring. I'm going to ask you because I know you know and I can't remember - how many are actually on ZHC and what percentage of the work force is that? And lastly (this bit you won't know) what percentage of those on ZHC voted and voted labour? Not enough to make a difference clearly.

 

Way back in 93 I had to write an essay on why labour lost the 92 election. If things are as truly awful as Anna and mecky, sorry boomer and the London protesters think it is you have to wonder why labour, despite the obvious handicap of ed milliband, didn't win.

 

I think it's less than 2% of the workforce on ZHC and about a third of those would like more hours..so maybe a couple of hundred thousand people are "unhappy" with ZHC..out of over 30 million workers..zero hours can't be all bad after all ..

 

http://www.expressandstar.com/news/2015/04/03/700-wolverhampton-city-council-staff-on-zero-hour-contracts/

Edited May 13, 2015 by truman

[sgtkate 10]

That's quite a claim..the Greens got an average of around 2000 votes per candidate and 3.8% of the total vote...I'm not saying you're wrong but how many seats would 2000 votes have made a difference in? and you're assuming that they would all have gone to Labour..

 

---------- Post added 13-05-2015 at 14:52 ----------

 

I could be wrong but the only Labour leader to have been elected PM since 1976 has been Tony Blair.All the rest were to the left of the divide as I understand it...there must be a moral in there somewhere...

 

There were over 25 seats with less than 2000 votes between 1st and 2nd place and in at least 5 seats if the majority of the Green votes had gone to Labour then they would have beaten the Tories for that seat. Tories would still have had the majority of seats so I'm not trying to engineer a moral victory for the left! Just offering an opinion as to why I think Labour should go more left wing. We need a strong left wing party as much as we need a strong right wing one to ensure some balance otherwise we will lurch drastically one way or another and regardless of my left leanings I think a lurch either way would be v negative for the whole of the UK.

[truman 10]

There were over 25 seats with less than 2000 votes between 1st and 2nd place and in at least 5 seats if the majority of the Green votes had gone to Labour then they would have beaten the Tories for that seat. Tories would still have had the majority of seats so I'm not trying to engineer a moral victory for the left! Just offering an opinion as to why I think Labour should go more left wing. We need a strong left wing party as much as we need a strong right wing one to ensure some balance otherwise we will lurch drastically one way or another and regardless of my left leanings I think a lurch either way would be v negative for the whole of the UK.

 

Does that include Scottish seats? Just interested which seats they are..

[salou4 10]

I think it's less than 2% of the workforce on ZHC and about a third of those would like more hours..so maybe a couple of hundred thousand people are "unhappy" with ZHC..out of over 30 million workers..zero hours can't be all bad after all ..

 

http://www.expressandstar.com/news/2015/04/03/700-wolverhampton-city-council-staff-on-zero-hour-contracts/

 

I saw someone, (can't remember who), say yesterday that Labour focused their campaign on making life better for the bottom 2% at the expense of the top 2%. There for ignoring the 96% in the middle. Pretty much sums it up.

[sgtkate 10]

Does that include Scottish seats? Just interested which seats they are..

 

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.

[Eater Sundae 12]

There were over 25 seats with less than 2000 votes between 1st and 2nd place and in at least 5 seats if the majority of the Green votes had gone to Labour then they would have beaten the Tories for that seat. Tories would still have had the majority of seats so I'm not trying to engineer a moral victory for the left! Just offering an opinion as to why I think Labour should go more left wing. We need a strong left wing party as much as we need a strong right wing one to ensure some balance otherwise we will lurch drastically one way or another and regardless of my left leanings I think a lurch either way would be v negative for the whole of the UK.

 

But surely a harder left Labour party and a harder right Conservative party would result in even more lurching each time the opposition win an election. Whereas if we had a "Tory Lite" style of Labour party and a more left wing Conservative party, then we'd see little difference between them, and very little lurching.

[Mister M 1,625]

I saw someone, (can't remember who), say yesterday that Labour focused their campaign on making life better for the bottom 2% at the expense of the top 2%. There for ignoring the 96% in the middle. Pretty much sums it up.

 

I disagree with that whoever suggested that. Miliband was mocked at the time for coining the phrase 'squeezed middle' (meaning middle England) and relentlessly wanting a 'one nation' Labour Party.

I admire Miliband's principled stand against Murdoch and his determination to challenge the powerful when others were criticising the poor. If that makes him left wing and 'Red Ed' then it just shows how far to the right the centre of gravity in British politics has travelled.

[sgtkate 10]

But surely a harder left Labour party and a harder right Conservative party would result in even more lurching each time the opposition win an election. Whereas if we had a "Tory Lite" style of Labour party and a more left wing Conservative party, then we'd see little difference between them, and very little lurching.

 

Perhaps, but then we might end up with even more voter apathy. No simple solutions are there?

[salou4 10]

I disagree with that whoever suggested that. Miliband was mocked at the time for coining the phrase 'squeezed middle' (meaning middle England) and relentlessly wanting a 'one nation' Labour Party.

 

But his rhetoric wasn't matched with any policies.

[Anna B 1,414]

Mod Note

 

 

 

Poll added

 

Thanks very much esme.

[charmer 10]

The electorate will not vote for a left wing party.

 

5 years of economic growth ahead of us