What now for Labour? (Part 1)

by **Ivan** Fri May 08, 2015 11:43 pm

First topic message reminder :

A post mortem

We lost. I feared the worst a few days ago when walking my dog. I met a left-wing man I’ve known for years who said that he was voting for the Peace Party. Someone of his persuasion was going to throw his vote down the drain instead of opting for the only party which could replace the Tories. That made me apprehensive about whether millions of anti-Tory voters would use their votes effectively. (The Peace Party came seventh in my constituency.) Worse was to follow when I logged in here. To read that a serious Tory hater couldn’t “become enthused by any party on offer” and chose not to vote for the only viable alternative to Cameron’s evil regime, was further evidence, albeit anecdotal, that the Labour campaign, despite having so many troops on the ground, was failing to motivate enough people to secure a victory.

About eleven million people in the UK (about 37% of those who voted) chose the Tories, and it resulted in them winning 331 of the 650 seats in Parliament, 12 more than all the other parties combined. In our so-called democracy, we have to respect their choice, even if it’s difficult to understand it. I’ve never come to terms with how anyone of modest means, or anyone with a social conscience, could ever vote Tory. I have a brief encounter with OCD whenever I go into a polling booth, checking what I’ve done on the ballot paper several times before I put it in the box.

What makes it even more difficult to understand now is that many people believed Cameron in 2010, he lied to them and has since broken a string of promises (which have been recorded elsewhere on this forum any number of times). He’s presided over the cruellest government in living memory, and yet so many people don’t seem to care. He’s stuffed the House of Lords with cronies, often after the Tories have received generous donations from them, and he's sold off state assets at knockdown prices, in the case of the Royal Mail enabling Osborne’s best man to make a fortune. He and his government have even been reprimanded several times for falsifying statistics.

The Tories often complain that the BBC is ‘left-wing’, which it isn’t, as a thread on this forum fully demonstrates; if anything it leans to the right these days, and it has always fawned over so-called ‘royalty’. But the Tories never complain about the rabid right-wing nature of most of the press, with even ‘The Independent’ giving them a tepid endorsement this week. That press, and programmes such as ‘HIGN4Y’ and ‘News Quiz’, have participated in the character assassination of Ed Miliband over a long period of time, gradually corroding his credibility, and dismissing him as “not being prime ministerial”. Whether he is we will never find out now, but does Cameron fit the bill? So often he’s shown himself to be an arrogant, bad-tempered, out-of-touch bully with a sense of entitlement. His behaviour on the day after the Scottish independence referendum incited the Scots and drove many of them from Labour into the arms of the SNP. In this campaign, he created fear of the SNP to scare many English voters towards the Tories. Had he been alive today, Machiavelli could have learned lessons from Cameron.

Ed Miliband sometimes looks awkward on television and isn’t very good at eating a bacon sandwich (who is?). But what does it say when the issue of choosing a potential prime minister is reduced to the level of a vote for ‘Britain’s Got Talent’ or ‘The X Factor’? Would Clement Attlee - in my opinion the greatest PM we’ve ever had - have won many votes for his celebrity status? Shouldn’t it be more important to choose between the bedroom tax and a mansion tax, and between democratically managed public services or private ones controlled by unaccountable corporations? Did those who voted Tory really want the ultimate destruction of the welfare state? Are they really so blasé about the possibility of becoming sick, unemployed or disabled one day? Instead of thinking about such issues, so many were distracted by the Tory charge that Miliband was ‘weak’, even though Cameron was too scared to debate head-to-head with him.

So it was rather like 1992 after all. No triumphalist Sheffield rally this time, just a silly stone monument, but the polls telling us that it was neck-and-neck and then the Tories winning easily. Three party leaders have resigned, but so should the pollsters. Electoral Calculus was claiming only yesterday that the chance of a Tory majority was just 4%. I don’t think I’ll ever bother to look at an opinion poll again; studying tea leaves is probably a more reliable guide to election outcomes.

Maybe the similarities with 1992 (which turned out to be a good election to lose) won’t end there. Five months after John Major lied his way back into office with scaremongering and promises of “tax cuts year on year”, Tory economic incompetence was there for all to see on ‘Black Wednesday’. His hapless government, riddled with sleaze and tearing itself apart over Europe, limped through five unhappy years, and we all know what happened next. So maybe 2020 will be like 1997, but five years is a long while to wait to find out, and sadly a lot of vulnerable people are going to suffer in the meantime.

by Claudine Fri Jul 03, 2015 3:41 pm

ghost whistler wrote:
Claudine wrote:Well I do, for a start.
why?

Because I care, gw. I care what happens to those people who were unfortunate enough not to be born holding the proverbial spoon. I care about what happens to this country's young people & I care about everyone having an equal opportunity to better their lives instead of hoping against hope that they'll choose the winning lottery numbers.

You may and probably will mock that but that's what I believe.

by Claudine Fri Jul 03, 2015 3:43 pm

Bobby, it may be frustrating defending your views to gw but he is entitled to have views of his own.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Jul 03, 2015 3:59 pm

ghost whistler wrote:
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:Read Labour's manifesto

Entire manifesto in PDF form
why would anyone give a dam whats in their manifesto?

Perhaps because whats (sic) in their manifesto is of interest to them, I can think of no other reason. Though that reason would seem sufficient reason to me. Why are you trying to pick a fight all the time? Isn't politics a dirty enough business without spoiling for a fight with those who hail from the same side of the political spectrum you claim to inhabit?

Also because someone suggested it be posted up.

Redflag wrote:Thank you boatlady he/she also needs to check the facts about the Labour parties policies, maybe Ivan can put Labours Manifesto on the forum so all can see what left policies look like.

by **Ivan** Fri Jul 03, 2015 5:08 pm

If you pay your party subscription, you get to make your choice.... Cool

1. Andy Burnham

Andy is 45 and has been an MP since 2001. He held ministerial posts under Tony Blair and cabinet posts under Gordon Brown. He ran for the leadership in 2010 and came fourth out of five candidates. He gets my first preference because he has fire in his belly and his views are sufficiently left-of-centre to make a difference, but not too left-wing to frighten away those with more ‘moderate’ opinions. The journalist Dan Hodges (who is supporting Yvette Cooper) admits that Andy “proved both in government and opposition – with his ferocious lobbying for a proper inquiry into the Hillsborough victims and his plans for radical reform of social care – that he is a politician of substance and principle”.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/politics-blog/11713020/Yvette-Cooper-should-be-the-next-Labour-leader.html

2. Yvette Cooper

Yvette is 46 and highly intelligent, with a first from Oxford and further qualifications from Harvard and the LSE. She knows a hell of a lot more about economics than George Osborne, though that isn’t necessarily saying much. She’s been an MP for 18 years and would have stood for the leadership in 2010 but understandably decided that her children were too young at the time. She held two cabinet posts in Gordon Brown’s government. It might be time for Labour to have its first female leader?

3. Jeremy Corbyn

The candidate for the purists, those who are more concerned with maintaining the integrity of their socialist principles than achieving power. By all accounts he’s a very nice man, genuinely concerned for the less well off and for peace issues, but as I understand him to be anti-EU, he won’t get my first or second preference.

Jeremy is 66 and has been a backbench MP since 1983. He will be 71 just a few days after the next election. He will be almost 76 by the end of the next parliament. Although Churchill returned to Downing Street at the age of 76 in 1951 (and his poor health was covered up), and Gladstone began his fourth ministry at the age of 82, I suspect that the day for having ‘oldies’ as PM has long ended. I can imagine the right-wing press inventing stories about Jeremy’s health and mocking him as they did Ming Campbell when he was Lib Dem leader.

4. Liz Kendall

Liz is 44 years old and has been an MP only since 2010. She’s arguably the most photogenic candidate, in an age when appearance and celebrity seem to count for much more than they should; does that mean she’s the most ‘electable’? She's the most right-wing of the candidates, a fact which is unlikely to motivate many of the party’s foot soldiers. If you’re going to copy many of the Tory policies and merely argue “vote for us because we’re not them”, is there much point in bothering? That way the Tories win even when they’re not in power!

Liz attacked both Andy and Yvette in ‘The Sun’ of all papers for being 'continuity Ed'. Not only was that unnecessarily spiteful towards colleagues she will have to work with whatever the result, but it was tactically stupid; she will now lose a lot of second preference votes from those who support those two candidates. Liz is definitely my fourth choice!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33378988

by ghost whistler Fri Jul 03, 2015 7:19 pm

bobby wrote:oftenwrong said:"It's likely that the Labour leadership will have five years in which to plan the campaign for election, now that we have a fixed-term Parliament."

Dead right Terry, my point was that Labour need to attack and bring the foul, evil deeds perpetrated by this pack of strunzi to the public eye. Its absolutely no good in waiting the 5 years to get stuck in to the Tories.
Theirs no point in giving them enough rope to hang themselves, before the election they had more than enough rope and it was provided by the labour party, look where that got us?

The labour party may have five years. The rest of us don't.

And while the Labour party continues it's march toward irrelevance and suicide what on earth makes you think they will attack the Tories? They haven't over the last five years and have in fact been happy to pass on the cuts at the local level. They've done nothing. Absolutely nothing. In fact, again since you all keep ignoring this, they have colluded with the tories.

They are not a party worth a damn. What on earth is gained by continuing to pretend they are? Do you believe Jeremy Corbyn is going to save them? He hasn't a chance of winning.

by ghost whistler Fri Jul 03, 2015 7:21 pm

Redflag wrote:
ghost whistler wrote:I told you what will work: direct action, general strike, etc.

I don't propose that's easy or popular.

Your solution seems to be believe that the labour party are something they aren't and that they will rescue us all in 5 years.

too late.

is not up to the Labour party or the Unions in regard to general strikes GW, that is on the shoulders of the TUC & the STUC so stop blaming the Labour party I have been shouting for a general strike since 2011.

Why aren't the labour party joining the call for a strike then? Miliband was BOOED at a demonstration a few years back for speaking against strikes! The guy deserved to lose he was a waste of skin.

by ghost whistler Fri Jul 03, 2015 7:47 pm

Redflag wrote:
ghost whistler wrote:

The only tories on this site are the labour supporters who agree with labour's position on forced work.

something i've mentioned many times that noone has said was unacceptable.

You need to get a life, you fuckwit.

The difference between Labour and the Tories forced work GW is, with the Tories you are forced to work for your JSA, with the Labour parties forced work they WILL get the MINIMUM WAGE. You need to clean out your ear holes of wax so you can hear properly and not make up your own policies for the Labour party PS twould have ben paid for by taxing the greedy bankers

Forcing people to work for a crap wage is disgusting no matter whether it's the appalling NMW or JSA.

What happens to people who refuse to be bullied like this? Are you heroes going to starve them to death?

My god, how far society has fallen. There aren't even the jobs for them to do.

by oftenwrong Fri Jul 03, 2015 7:47 pm

The justification for a Trade Union movement is that it supports the right of a worker to withdraw his/her labour in the face of an unreasonable Employer. The Labour Party and Trade Unions are each reliant upon the other in seeking fair treatment for those not equally placed in negotiating power.

The general public are broadly in sympathy with the objective of a level playing-field as between Management and Workers, but there has NEVER been widespread support for a General Strike, which is thought to have much in common with the nuclear deterrent, as a bargaining counter.

by ghost whistler Fri Jul 03, 2015 7:50 pm

Claudine wrote:
ghost whistler wrote:
why?

Because I care, gw. I care what happens to those people who were unfortunate enough not to be born holding the proverbial spoon. I care about what happens to this country's young people & I care about everyone having an equal opportunity to better their lives instead of hoping against hope that they'll choose the winning lottery numbers.

You may and probably will mock that but that's what I believe.

We all care. So what? Do you think Labour cares? What do you base that on? Their support for austerity, their capitulation to big business, their support for rampant privatisation and PFI? War? Their rejection of the labour movement? Their complete inability to stand up to the tories should tell you something about their values. Their choice of leader and leadership candidates should be screaming out at you, but you jsut aren't receiving.

Labour are not interested in supporting anything other than the same value system as the tories.

What on earth do you think will happen if by some miracle thy were to win in 2020 - never mind they will carry on supporting tory austerity until then, just as they have so far.

by ghost whistler Fri Jul 03, 2015 7:52 pm

bobby wrote:ghost whistler said: "why would anyone give a dam whats in their manifesto?"
Well I do for one. This is based on the fact that when Tony Blair won his first election in 1997, 80% of Labours manifesto was implemented within their first Parliament, the remaining 20% was dealt with by either changes made by the 80% or deemed unnecessary due to changed circumstances.
Perhaps you might inform us as to what your statement is based on?.
Labour aren't what they were and never will be, as the world has changed so has the Labour party, gone are the days when we had a Party of our own whose only interest was the working class. It seems the only people who can enjoy such a luxury are the wealthiest in the country( The Conservatives), whereas what we need is a Government who will look after the interests of all, the wage earners and the wage payers. The only party's that come anywhere near that are Labour and possibly the Greens. We will not have a Green Government which leaves Labour as the only real hope of fairness to most.

My statement is based on the reality of the modern labour party and it's total abandonment of the poor and the vulnerable and it's capitulation to the idea of austerity and the need for the ruling elite to get richer and more powerful. That's their manifesto.

If you think labour are going to look after the interests of all then you haven't been paying attention to labour.

by ghost whistler Fri Jul 03, 2015 7:54 pm

oftenwrong wrote:The justification for a Trade Union movement is that it supports the right of a worker to withdraw his/her labour in the face of an unreasonable Employer. The Labour Party and Trade Unions are each reliant upon the other in seeking fair treatment for those not equally placed in negotiating power.

The general public are broadly in sympathy with the objective of a level playing-field as between Management and Workers, but there has NEVER been widespread support for a General Strike, which is thought to have much in common with the nuclear deterrent, as a bargaining counter.

Labour do not seek fair treatment for people. they haven't for a long long time.

If you won't support a general strike then i suggest you get used to living on your knees.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Jul 03, 2015 8:15 pm

ghost whistler wrote:Labour are not interested in supporting anything other than the same value system as the tories.

So the 37% who voted Tory were wasting their time and might just as easily have voted Labour? Are you sure?

by **Ivan** Fri Jul 03, 2015 8:32 pm

As I was saying..... What a Face

Liz Kendall is my last preference for next Labour leader, but I do give her credit for saying that we should go out and make the positive case for membership of the EU. For far too long, the right-wing media, whose owners are concerned that they may be restrained by EU regulations, have provided a slow drip of negative anecdotes to turn 'Little Englanders' against the largest free trade area the world has ever seen. And if these Tory sociopaths get around to abolishing the Human Rights Act, as they clearly intend to do, British workers may have reason to be grateful for the employment rights which are safeguarded by the EU.

Rafael Behr has written: “The EU is meant to aggregate the power of national governments in response to global forces that might otherwise be beyond the capacity of individual states: climate change, energy security, terrorism, and strategic parity with the US, China, India and Russia.” It would be crazy to turn our backs on that.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/30/eu-democracy-left-brussels-capitalism

by ghost whistler Fri Jul 03, 2015 8:54 pm

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:
ghost whistler wrote:Labour are not interested in supporting anything other than the same value system as the tories.

So the 37% who voted Tory were wasting their time and might just as easily have voted Labour? Are you sure?

I have no idea what you're talking about

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Jul 03, 2015 9:07 pm

ghost whistler wrote:
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:

So the 37% who voted Tory were wasting their time and might just as easily have voted Labour? Are you sure?
I have no idea what you're talking about

Your quote is right there, claiming Labour are promoting the same value system as the Tories. If that were true it wouldn't matter which party people voted for. I was challenging this idea, as it doesn't strike me as a reasonable assertion.

by ghost whistler Fri Jul 03, 2015 9:35 pm

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:
ghost whistler wrote:
I have no idea what you're talking about

Your quote is right there, claiming Labour are promoting the same value system as the Tories. If that were true it wouldn't matter which party people voted for. I was challenging this idea, as it doesn't strike me as a reasonable assertion.

It largely doesn't matter who you vote for. The Greens might be effective, but we will never know. The three main parties are all the same. Any differences are as minor as to be negligible.

Tory voters aren't going to vote Labour because they have been convinced Labour are left wing socialists. This is painfully untrue and doesn't bear even the merest scrutiny.

by boatlady Fri Jul 03, 2015 10:07 pm

It largely doesn't matter who you vote for. The Greens might be effective, but we will never know. The three main parties are all the same. Any differences are as minor as to be negligible.

I have no idea what you're talking about - you do not present a positive programme or any positive ideas - to me you appear like a baby screaming because mummy hasn't brought the bottle quickly enough. I'm not sure that constitutes a political position.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Fri Jul 03, 2015 10:07 pm

ghost whistler wrote:It largely doesn't matter who you vote for. The Greens might be effective, but we will never know. The three main parties are all the same. Any differences are as minor as to be negligible.

That makes all the angst at the Tory party being re-elected a little strange, wouldn't you say? Are you really suggesting that NHS and welfare funding and structure wouldn't have been any different under a Labour government?

by ghost whistler Sat Jul 04, 2015 7:22 am

how would they be different? Show me the evidence?

by Redflag Sat Jul 04, 2015 9:22 am

The reason you asked the question is because yoiu know there is no evidence GW, EXCEPT to look at what good the Labour party did between 1997-2010. Example Minimum wage more money into our NHS & education evolved Parliaments for Scotland Wales and Norhern Ireland plus Tax credit for low paid workers taking children out of POVERTY & all these things are been UNDONE by this Tory gov't there is your evidence GW if you want to believe it, but knowing you you will not because I believe you to be a Tory SYMPATHIZER. headbang

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat Jul 04, 2015 9:38 am

ghost whistler wrote:how would they be different? Show me the evidence?

You made the claim they were the same. It's for you to evidence your claim, not for me to disprove it.

Presumably you based the claim on some tangible evidence?

by **Ivan** Sat Jul 04, 2015 12:10 pm

The Labour Party was set up to contest parliamentary and other elections. Its function has never been to arrange or support extra-parliamentary protests and strikes. Its trade union links will mean that some of its members will take part in those actions, but the party’s commitment is to achieving change by democratic means. You might argue that mass demonstrations are democratic – an expression of the will of some people – but never the will of anywhere near enough of the 65 million of us in the UK to really make a difference.

When protests do get reported (which is not always the case with the BBC), it’s invariably done in a negative way which, if anything, hardens opinion against the demonstrators. The Tories and their media cronies are masters at eroding our rights and our living standards by stealth and with lies and misinformation. I’m afraid that circumstances have to get a lot lot worse – at least on a par with Paris in 1789 (where the price of bread had risen 50% in two years), or maybe Petrograd in 1917 (where ice on the railway lines prevented food from getting in) – before you get your revolution.

In the meantime, a number of us on this forum think the Labour Party is the only organ ever likely to be in a position to bring about improvements in living standards for ordinary people. I have no doubt that if Labour had won the election, the bedroom tax would now be history, whereas Duncan Smith plans to extend it. I have no doubt that the top rate of income tax would be rising to 50% - not high enough, in my opinion, but better than Osborne’s plan to reduce it to 40%. Inheritance tax, paid now by only the wealthiest 5% of estates, is to be reduced further; that wouldn’t have happened under a Miliband government. And above all, Labour was planning to replace the House of Lords with an elected Senate, which would have extended our excuse for a democracy.

If you bother to look for them, the differences between Labour and the Tories are real enough, even though many of us wish they were greater. However, to get any progressive changes implemented we have to take at least 40% of the population with us – some with mortgages, many scared of losing their jobs and worried about how to feed their children – and not just those who think that protests and civil disobedience are the way forward.

The Labour Party will continue as before, seeking change through democratic means, and the purpose of this thread is to discuss what its tactics and policies should be, and which of the four contenders should be its leader. Personally, I’d like to see a cast-iron commitment to implement proportional representation for parliamentary elections, coupled with an appeal to all non-Tory parties to ‘lend’ us their votes at the next election to get it implemented.

by ghost whistler Sat Jul 04, 2015 1:53 pm

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:
ghost whistler wrote:how would they be different? Show me the evidence?
You made the claim they were the same. It's for you to evidence your claim, not for me to disprove it.

Presumably you based the claim on some tangible evidence?

I have already provided you evidence, over many pages, you keep ignoring whatever doesn't suit your rosy head in the sand view of the labour party. They constantly collude with the tories, their priorities are politically the same, they are as much a group of rentier trough snuffling pigs as the tories, they have long abandoned their core, and threw the election.

If this is the party for you, then i pity you.

by ghost whistler Sat Jul 04, 2015 1:55 pm

Ivan wrote:The Labour Party was set up to contest parliamentary and other elections. Its function has never been to arrange or support extra-parliamentary protests and strikes. Its trade union links will mean that some of its members will take part in those actions, but the party’s commitment is to achieving change by democratic means. You might argue that mass demonstrations are democratic – an expression of the will of some people – but never the will of anywhere near enough of the 65 million of us in the UK to really make a difference.

When protests do get reported (which is not always the case with the BBC), it’s invariably done in a negative way which, if anything, hardens opinion against the demonstrators. The Tories and their media cronies are masters at eroding our rights and our living standards by stealth and with lies and misinformation. I’m afraid that circumstances have to get a lot lot worse – at least on a par with Paris in 1789 (where the price of bread had risen 50% in two years), or maybe Petrograd in 1917 (where ice on the railway lines prevented food from getting in) – before you get your revolution.

Who cares about all this.

What is important is that it is doing absolutely nothing for the people of this country. What does it matter if it was set up to support strikes or not, the important thing is that it does so now since that is the only weapon against the tories.

My god the likes of IDS love you lot, with your naive complicity.

To arug ethat the Miliband government, which was never going to happen because Miliband was not ever going to win nor did he even want to, would give us what we need is laughable. They are just as dirty as the tories. WHy on earth does Rachel Reeves argue for being tougher than IDS on welfare? Why do these pigs support slavery?

by **Phil Hornby** Sat Jul 04, 2015 3:24 pm

Does anyone remember that miserable kid at birthday parties who didn't like any of the games and who couldn't find a sandwich, or a biscuit, or a jelly which suited him...and thought everybody else should share his complaints...?

by ghost whistler Sat Jul 04, 2015 3:48 pm

Deleted - I have already spoken to you about insulting other forum members - as I said - try to play nicely - or you could always take your toys to another playground.
boatlady

by **Phil Hornby** Sat Jul 04, 2015 4:51 pm

Did you happen to recognise somebody who embarrassed you, ghostie?

Not quite sure who you imagine 'my dear leader' is but - for all the impact it makes - you would be more profitably employed attempting to sell the Morning Star in Henley-on-Thames than trying to abuse me ! Smile

by Claudine Sat Jul 04, 2015 7:31 pm

GW: It appears to me that you are an angry and hostile person but your anger is misdirected towards the wrong people. With the budget coming this week and the leaks seeming to point to an ever increasing draconian punishment of the poor, your passion should be directed towards those in government.

by Redflag Sun Jul 05, 2015 11:25 am

Claudine wrote:GW: It appears to me that you are an angry and hostile person but your anger is misdirected towards the wrong people. With the budget coming this week and the leaks seeming to point to an ever increasing draconian punishment of the poor, your passion should be directed towards those in government.

Well said Claudine thank you for stating the obvious but GW will not think it so obvious because like the Tories all the blame should fall on the Labour party, while knowing we have a right wing Tory gov't which has made me think that GW is a Tory SYMPATHIZER

by **Ivan** Sun Jul 05, 2015 11:28 am

ghost whistler wrote:-
To argue that the Miliband government….....would give us what we need is laughable. They are just as dirty as the Tories. Why on earth does Rachel Reeves argue for being tougher than IDS on welfare?

If you bother to read what I wrote, I argued that many of us wish that the differences between Labour and the Tories were greater. However, we live in a supposed democracy, which means that we don’t all get everything we want. There are significant differences between the parties. Labour wouldn’t be planning to cut the benefits of disabled people by £30 a week, or raising the inheritance tax threshold, or drastically increasing the rent of tenants in social housing who earn £30,000 a year (that may be above the national average, but it doesn’t mean they can afford to buy a house).

To claim that Labour is “just as dirty as the Tories” is a lazy response which insults the intelligence of those thousands of members who realise that their party is the only one that can lead an alternative government to this evil shower. As to your obsession with Rachel Reeves, her remark about being “tougher on the welfare bill” has been explained several times before, but you seem determined to continue to spread misinformation because it suits your agenda.

This is a very scary government, revealing by stealth many of the traits of fascism. One such trait is to provoke civil disorder and then use it as an excuse (no doubt supported by so-called ‘Middle England’) for more repressive right-wing policies. The Tories would love a general strike right now, and their friends in the media would use it to great effect, as they did when someone put some removable graffiti on a memorial during an anti-austerity protest. In Italy in the 1920s, Mussolini used to send his own supporters out to stir up trouble so that he could claim law and order was breaking down and needed strengthening.

There may come a time when matters become so desperate for so many people that spontaneous mass civil disobedience will occur and bring the government down, but we’re not there yet. Furthermore, history shows us that the trouble with such action is that what replaces the tyranny is often (but not always) no better or even worse. Personally, I’d prefer to see a great deal more unity on the left, with a firm commitment from Labour to change the voting system. I think that’s a better way forward than verbally savaging, and even swearing at, those who probably agree with at least some of what you believe.

by Redflag Sun Jul 05, 2015 11:36 am

ghost whistler wrote:Forcing people to work for a crap wage is disgusting no matter whether it's the appalling NMW or JSA.

What happens to people who refuse to be bullied like this? Are you heroes going to starve them to death?

My god, how far society has fallen. There aren't even the jobs for them to do.

Firstly its the Tories that are making people work for there JSA NOT THE LABOUR PARTY, also Labour said they would make sure that people that were forced to work would be ENTITLED to the minimum wage unlike the Nasty Tory party who are providing there donors and mates with FREE LABOUR

So why don't you wake up and smell the coffee and not your own DISTORTED ideas. headbang

by sickchip Sun Jul 05, 2015 1:40 pm

ghost whistler - since you have failed to post a satisfactory 'realistic' alternative here is my post again. Your 'national strike' / 'direct action' stance does not count as an answer because that is NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN. You appear to want an overnight revolution that achieves your idea of nirvana....again - NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN. You really must do better than your naive BS suggestions and moaning about the Labour party. Come on then, gw.....have another attempt.

ghost whistler: The fact is the only party who will oust the Tories are the Labour party. I have on occasion been strident in my criticism of Labour over the years, and have frequently been disappointed by decisions, policy, and the route they have taken. Unfortunately we don't live in an ideal world and you will never find your ideal political party. You can view it as voting for the lesser of two evils, or however you want, but the fact remains to remove the Tories from power you need the Labour party.

I would suggest you'd have a greater chance of moving Labour slightly closer to your ideals by joining them, attending meetings, writing letters etc......I doubt you'd ever budge the Tories by doing the same.

You can wallow in your apparent rage all you wish and it will get you nowhere, and achieve nothing. The world is not, and never will be, perfect. We have to deal with what we have and try to influence that in whatever way we can to improve things. Do you want a Tory government? If not - can you suggest how to replace them without the Labour party. If you can't offer a realistic answer to that, then I suggest you get a little more realistic, pragmatic, and practical in your approach to politics.......because you will never find your ideal.

.....and even if you think Labour are just a diluted Tory party, I'd rather have that than full on Tory politics - at least there will be an iota of decency and humanity lurking there, and there will be more hope of influencing them.

by **Phil Hornby** Sun Jul 05, 2015 3:42 pm

" I’d prefer to see a great deal more unity on the left, with a firm commitment from Labour to change the voting system."

Which is why it would have been a good strategy ahead of the election for Ed Miliband to signal that he would welcome support from other left-of--centre parties, instead of bad-mouthing at least some of them.

Not all of them would have liked all of Labour's proposals, but it would have provided the electors with a better sense of what possibilities existed for an anti-Tory front for which to vote. Who knows how many would-be supporters of such an option would have turned up at the polling stations, instead of staying away?

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sun Jul 05, 2015 3:47 pm

ghost whistler wrote:you keep ignoring whatever doesn't suit your rosy head in the sand view of the labour party.

Care to show a post of mine where I have made any claims about how I view the Labour party? Or does this angry tirade work just as well for you based on pure assumption? It's an ironic accusation coming from you though, as your posts seem to roll past anything you don't like as if it hasn't happened. Like your claim that the Labour party took us to war in Iraq ignoring the inconvenient fact that there was cross party support and a free vote, I don't recall you even acknowledging those facts that YOU didn't like, preferring to make assumptions about my motives for which you had no evidence, and then ignoring me when pointed that out. Perhaps if you calmed down you might be able to gain some insights into what others think if you have any interest, otherwise you just come across as if you're lecturing people.

ghost whistler wrote: They constantly collude with the tories, their priorities are politically the same, they are as much a group of rentier trough snuffling pigs as the tories, they have long abandoned their core, and threw the election.

If this is the party for you, then i pity you.

That's just a repetition of your claim really, it certainly doesn't evidence your claim that there is no difference between the two. I don't really care whether you pity me or not, as you know squat about me, and your angry ad hominem isn't making your bombast any more compelling, quite the opposite I'd say. Try listing major manifesto aims that are identical for both parties, that'd get my attention.

by **Ivan** Sun Jul 05, 2015 8:51 pm

Great news. The executive of the Unite union has endorsed Jeremy Corbyn as its preferred leader of the Labour Party, although trade unions now wield less influence under Labour's one person, one vote system. It means that when one of the other three candidates – most probably Andy Burnham - becomes party leader, the Tories and their skunks in the media won’t be able to vilify that person as “the union candidate”, as Ed Miliband was portrayed throughout the last parliament.

by **Phil Hornby** Sun Jul 05, 2015 8:57 pm

I suspect, Ivan, that the Tory-loving media will soon find another tiresome stereotype with which to assail the lucky winner...

by **Ivan** Sun Jul 05, 2015 9:05 pm

I note that after a two-month break, the Tory papers are starting to direct their poison at Labour politicians once again. According to ‘The Daily Telegraph’, Jeremy Corbyn divorced his wife for sending their son to a grammar school. Rolling Eyes

Phil Hornby wrote:-
it would have been a good strategy ahead of the election for Ed Miliband to signal that he would welcome support from other left-of--centre parties, instead of bad-mouthing at least some of them.

To be fair, I think it was a lose-lose situation. To be seen to be prepared to work with the SNP would have been portrayed as (a) an admission that Labour couldn’t win the election on its own, (b) a way of undermining Labour candidates trying to defeat the SNP in Scottish constituencies, and (c) the endorsement of a party which wants to break up the UK – and how the Tory press would have loved that!

by oftenwrong Sun Jul 05, 2015 11:04 pm

Odd that the Tories were not criticised in similar terms for co-habiting with the Lib-Dems when it suited them.

by **Phil Hornby** Mon Jul 06, 2015 9:53 am

The word 'hypocrisy' was invented to address such situations. Smile

by Redflag Mon Jul 06, 2015 11:50 am

Phil Hornby wrote:The word 'hypocrisy' was invented to address such situations.

PH I think GW is past hypocrisy, he/she seem to bang on about how the Labour party is bad Tory party is good could they be a Tory activists trying to get us to stop voting Labour & vote either Tory or Ukip ??

by Redflag Mon Jul 06, 2015 12:16 pm

I will upset some on this forum with what I am about to say, if Labour members vote for Jermy Corbyn it will be like voting for another Michael Foot and we all know what happened there a Tory gov't and more privatization of our public services.

I would have liked Alan Johnson to throw his hat in the ring he would have been the right Labour man for the job, the right wing press and the Tory party are starting up there insult and smear machine for whoever wins the Labour leadership so I would ask you all to think before you vote, the Tory party would love us to vote for Jermy Corbyn because that would allow them to win the 2020 G.E.

I still do not know who I will be voting for yet, I am going to a hustings in Glasgow on Friday 10th July I am hoping that things become clearer for me. Last week on twitter there was a leaked letter from the Tory association etting out names for the future Labour leader Andy Burnham will be called "The Butcher" sdo if Corbyn wins I hope he is ready with his own cutting remarks for the Tory party.

by Sponsored content