Jump to content
The Christmas Logo Competition is back. See thread in Sheffield Discussions for details ×

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

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.”

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.

 

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 by anarchist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the ID card fiasco was another factor in Labour's 2010 defeat. And the PFI disasters which were surfacing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 reining in spending and supporting an enterprising economy.

 

The Labour party is certainly doomed if it has people in it who think that "reining in spending" is the way to boost the economy (let alone to achieve the aims of social justice that I thought Labour stood for). For one thing, that's certainly not what Blair and Brown did (they did some terrible things, but their record wasn't all bad, they did reduce child poverty for instance).

 

And if "economic trust" is an issue that works against Labour, that's because of the endless barrage of misinformation in the media, rather than anything evidence-based. From the end of WWII until the global financial crisis the economy generally fared better (or, at the very least, no worse) under Labour than under the Tories. I've given statistics and facts to support this on other threads, so won't repeat them here, unless I need to. And if I do need to defend Labour's historic record on the economy against a Labour party member, that's just another illustration of why Labour may be doomed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've given statistics and facts to support this on other threads, so won't repeat them here, .

 

No you haven't, you've just expressed your opinions as if they are facts.

Here's a fact for you: No Labour Government has ever left office with unemployment lower than when it came in.

That's a shameful record for a party that claims to be "for the working man".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No you haven't, you've just expressed your opinions as if they are facts.

Here's a fact for you: No Labour Government has ever left office with unemployment lower than when it came in.

That's a shameful record for a party that claims to be "for the working man".

 

That one statement sums up the ignorance of the electorate as much as any other.

 

What it tries to do is make it look like Labours record on employment was worse that it was when it came to office.

 

What it fails to do is mention is the years before the financial crisis where in every year it was lower than the so called employment miracle we are seeing now.

 

Here’s the graph that shows it, so if the Tories are to be commended for the current figures why can’t we recognise it was even better most of the time under Labour.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10604117

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Labour party is certainly doomed if it has people in it who think that "reining in spending" is the way to boost the economy.

 

Spending to boost the economy is a short term fix if it's not targeted spending. It's like burning fivers to keep warm. Yes you're warmer in the short run, but what about tomorrow?

 

We must invest in the right things for tomorrow that will stimulate a productive economy. Merely loosening the purse strings and seeing what happens is not the best use of the resources that we do have.

 

We need a strong government focused on social justice, but the foundation of a strong government isn't one that's crippled by debt. Like it or not public resources come from taxing private individuals and companies. A strong economy is the basis of a strong nation. (There is a strong case to rebalance taxation and have tighter regulation, but those policies must go hand in hand with responsible spending).

 

Yes, the left are hampered by a mostly hostile right wing press, but they'd do themselves a big favour and make fewer enemies if they woke up to the realities a responsible government must face: you can't continue to borrow and ignore the need for an enterprising economy (noting the distinction between valuable entrepreneurs and parasitic speculators).

 

---------- Post added 24-05-2015 at 15:15 ----------

 

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.

 

I think he recognised that a political party must straddle more than one point on the political spectrum.

 

When I say I'm to the right within the party, that doesn't mean I'm picking a fight with those whose views are to the left. I recognise that others within the party have differing views, but try not to lose sight of a common cause that will be beneficial for all.

 

The Labour Party must recognise differences within its ranks but work for common causes if it is to survive and become electable again.

 

In today's Observer, David Skelton (Tory) is quoted as saying "The skilled working class deserted Labour in 2010 and haven't come back. There is a really big opportunity for the Tories there."

 

The Tories are muscling in on what should be natural Labour territory.

 

The Labour party must not give up on the skilled working class, non-union members, aspirational voters or any other voter they can find common cause in establishing a society with equal opportunities and social justice.

Edited by DrNorm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Labour ought to ask their own party members questions like this.

 

They provide a sort of function in parliament bringing to people's attention things that the press won't or perhaps can't about the conservatives but were it no tfor that I'd suggest that they just go away.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did anyone see Harriet Harman on Andrew Marr on Sunday? Agreeing with and supporting the Tories on the EU referendum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That one statement sums up the ignorance of the electorate as much as any other.

 

What it tries to do is make it look like Labours record on employment was worse that it was when it came to office.

 

What it fails to do is mention is the years before the financial crisis where in every year it was lower than the so called employment miracle we are seeing now.

 

Here’s the graph that shows it, so if the Tories are to be commended for the current figures why can’t we recognise it was even better most of the time:loopy::loopy: under Labour.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10604117

 

That's a bit lame isn't it? That's rather like saying a gambler was successful because he won on the first race before losing his shirt on the 2nd, or a runner was successful because he was leading after one lap but had nothing left for the other 3. The idea is to leave the country better off at the end of your stint, not worse off. But the fact that you consider spending the country into the financial doggy doos as Labour's achievement is a pretty good indication of why the majority don't trust Labour with the economy. Remember "No more boom and bust?"

By the way. There were more people out of work when Labour left office in 2010 than there were when they took over in 1997. You can't get away from it. Labour are not trusted to run the economy.

Edited by anarchist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Did anyone see Harriet Harman on Andrew Marr on Sunday? Agreeing with and supporting the Tories on the EU referendum.
I did, but in fairness to her/Labour, she painted that as a case of political pragmatism, i.e. finally stopping to charge at windmills: the Referendum is going to happen regardless, so Labour may as well stop wasting their time opposing it, take it as a fait accompli and bat for the 'in' vote.

 

Not a change of tack which I would 'blame' Labour for, nor qualify as Labour 'agreeing' with the Tories about there being a need for a referendum.

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.