Jump to content

Should Labour move right or left?

Should Labour move right or left?  

109 members have voted

  1. 1. Should Labour move right or left?

    • Left
      75
    • Right
      26
    • Stay where they are
      8


Recommended Posts

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think we've peaked.
I think you're wrong. Or, well, your usual half-empty cup self :D (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 by L00b

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by blake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
<...>

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by SteveJ68

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.