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

THE Labour party and its owner the unions has outlived all usefulness. It has always had a damaging effect on this country and it is time it was consigned to the dustbin of history.

 

Apart from failing to address the genuine concerns of the nation it has, at this time, probably the weakest set of individual talent ever.

 

Barring unknowable events such as war or natural disaster the Tories look set to sort out the economy and Europe before 2020, they will change the boundaries in such a way as to ensure that Labour cant win in England, and hopefully get rid of Scotland altogether.

 

The future is bright, the future is blue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The future is bright, the future is blue.

 

So long as the blues are appealing to sufficient numbers of blue collar workers my great fear is that you may be right.

 

The Tory party is not a natural place to be for those who depend on their labour, rather than their capital assets for an income.

 

I'd love to hear from those who are on the left of the Labour party. I'd love to hear the sound of reconciliation rather than recrimination. It will a very sad outcome if divisions and failure to build a broad consensus force natural allies to desert to other parties. I'll be among the last to go but the current state of affairs leaves me without a huge amount of hope of change for the better any time soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would appear that most comedians want to have ago at any party except labour. Now if the comedians are backing labour do you really expect anyone else to?

 

To be honest I'm really starting to go off a lot of these comedians its mainly the ones that are just starting out they attack christianity but no other religion, slag off any party that's not labour and basically go for the cheap laughs from what they perceive to be the larger part of their audiences. Either maintainan a balance or leave religion and politucs alone.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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?

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did anyone watch any of this the other night? (I'm guessing not many :hihi:) 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':roll: in seconds.

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

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".

 

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.

Edited by CaptainSwing

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.