Where should the Labour Party position itself? (Part 1)

Do Labour go hunting for the electorate who voted Blair into power 3 times and risk the wrath of the Unions, or side with the core Labour party supporters and the Unions at a risk of being unable to get back the voters who deserted them in the last election?
 

The scale of the rift between Labour and the unions over Ed Miliband's decision to embrace austerity measures has been made clear as a senior leader warned of long-term implications over the "most serious mistake" the party could have made.
Unions affiliated to Labour have been fuming since shadow chancellor Ed Balls told a conference at the weekend that he would not reverse the Government's planned 1% public sector pay cap, which affects millions of workers.
Unite leader Len McCluskey warned that Mr Miliband was setting Labour on course for electoral "disaster" and undermining his own leadership by accepting Government cuts and the cap on public sector pay.
Mr Miliband hit back against his union critics, insisting that Mr McCluskey was "wrong" to attack his decision to embrace austerity measures.
It has emerged that the leader of the GMB has written to the union's senior officials saying that the speech by Ed Balls may have a "profound impact" on its relationship with the Labour Party.
General secretary Paul Kenny said in the message: "I have spoken to Ed Milliband and Ed Balls to ensure they were aware of how wrong I think the policy they are now following is. It is now time for careful consideration and thought before the wider discussions begin on the long-term implications this new stance by the party has on GMB affiliation.
"It will be a fundamental requirement that the CEC (executive) and Congress determine our way forward after proper debate. I will update everyone as events unfold but I have to say this is the most serious mistake they could have made and the Tories must be rubbing their hands with glee." The GMB declined to comment on the message but confirmed it had been sent.
Mr McCluskey said in an article in The Guardian: "Ed Balls' sudden weekend embrace of austerity and the Government's public sector pay squeeze represents a victory for discredited Blairism at the expense of the party's core supporters. It also challenges the whole course Ed Miliband has set for the party, and perhaps his leadership itself."
Mr Miliband responded in a statement: "Len McCluskey is entitled to his views but he is wrong. I am changing the Labour Party so we can deliver fairness even when there is less money around and that requires tough decisions."

We live in a one-party state, so who cares what one of its heads says? We have to build a new Party to represent working people. It'll be quite a job, but so it was last time.

I can not see anything wrong with what Edd Miliband or Edd Balls have said, and was reiterated by Harriet Harman.
How on earth can we expect Labour to plan a strategy 3 years before the next GE. When they have absolutely no idea what the economy will be after 5 years of mismanagement by the Tory Led Coalition. So who really wants them to make a promise they probably will not be able to keep. If they did promise Income Tax cuts, Vat cuts and a reinstatement of many of the services we have and are about to lose, along with every thing else we of the left want to see, the chances are that we will be in such a state with the economy the Tory’s will leave us, that none of their promises will come to fruition. Then what will you all be saying, you will condemn them for doing exactly what Herr Cameron and Cleggy have done. Edd Miliband is doing something you have all been asking for, that’s being honest, I really don’t know what the fickle Brits want, it seems that sometimes you prefer proven dishonesty.
They (Labour) have said that if they where now in power, the problem wouldn’t arise as they will not cut too Fast and too Deep as the Tory’s are doing, (remember just before Labour lost the last GE, we had growth and unemployment was reducing, and Labour pulled us out of recession,) any borrowing will be to create growth, VAT would not have risen. Tory Borrowing will simply pay for the rise in Job Seekers. What happens when that extra 57 Billion in Tory Borrowing can not be repaid due to the lack in growth, will they borrow more, or will it be more QE.
Some of you are in business, will you promise your staff a pay rise next year, if you don’t know if your company can afford it, if indeed still trading, or will you wait for next years figures before making a promise to your staff. That is exactly what Edd Miliband means. Perhaps if the so called interviewers/inquisitors gave Edd Miliband a chance to answer a question, they will properly understand what Edd Miliband means.

""When they have absolutely no idea what the economy will be after 5 years of mismanagement by the Tory Led Coalition"".

Let's get one thing straight, there is no such thing as Tory "mismanagement" ........The Tory Agenda is indeed their right wing ideoligy. Destroy public services and bring in privatisation.

As far as Labour are concerned ?. They can either go back to their core values, born out of our exploitive industrial past, or they can continue the complete reverse, ie what we have now under this right wing Tory lead coalition and their ideologically driven cuts.

If the Milliband Labour Party is indeed committed to dealing with things AS THEY ARE, rather than things as everyone would prefer, there is hope for us yet.

Also earlier on another thread :

The criticism of Miliband today by elements of the union movement seems to confirm at least one thing : while the trade unions cannot mend their ways and continue to live in the 1980s, the Labour Party can respond to the need for pragmatic change.

We must also conclude that the TUC is like the Tory Party - which also cannot - or will not- change its vile and entrenched ways and is similarly wedded to class war and repulsive tribal practices. This may point the way for Miliband to show that his re-styling of his Party - in a spirit of willingness to ditch old 'sacred cows' in the face of newly emerging social and financial events and challenges- provides a possible sanctuary for people who cannot abide the unpleasant outer reaches of both Left and Right which so many find distasteful.

But he has a lot of convincing still to do...

...... and nowhere near the financial resources which the Tory Party can call upon.

blueturando wrote:Do Labour go hunting for the electorate who voted Blair into power 3 times and risk the wrath of the Unions, or side with the core Labour party supporters and the Unions at a risk of being unable to get back the voters who deserted them in the last election?

The scale of the rift between Labour and the unions over Ed Miliband's decision to embrace austerity measures has been made clear as a senior leader warned of long-term implications over the "most serious mistake" the party could have made.
Unions affiliated to Labour have been fuming since shadow chancellor Ed Balls told a conference at the weekend that he would not reverse the Government's planned 1% public sector pay cap, which affects millions of workers.
Unite leader Len McCluskey warned that Mr Miliband was setting Labour on course for electoral "disaster" and undermining his own leadership by accepting Government cuts and the cap on public sector pay.
Mr Miliband hit back against his union critics, insisting that Mr McCluskey was "wrong" to attack his decision to embrace austerity measures.
It has emerged that the leader of the GMB has written to the union's senior officials saying that the speech by Ed Balls may have a "profound impact" on its relationship with the Labour Party.
General secretary Paul Kenny said in the message: "I have spoken to Ed Milliband and Ed Balls to ensure they were aware of how wrong I think the policy they are now following is. It is now time for careful consideration and thought before the wider discussions begin on the long-term implications this new stance by the party has on GMB affiliation.
"It will be a fundamental requirement that the CEC (executive) and Congress determine our way forward after proper debate. I will update everyone as events unfold but I have to say this is the most serious mistake they could have made and the Tories must be rubbing their hands with glee." The GMB declined to comment on the message but confirmed it had been sent.
Mr McCluskey said in an article in The Guardian: "Ed Balls' sudden weekend embrace of austerity and the Government's public sector pay squeeze represents a victory for discredited Blairism at the expense of the party's core supporters. It also challenges the whole course Ed Miliband has set for the party, and perhaps his leadership itself."
Mr Miliband responded in a statement: "Len McCluskey is entitled to his views but he is wrong. I am changing the Labour Party so we can deliver fairness even when there is less money around and that requires tough decisions."

What do you expect he knows the Tories better than most of us he knows that the Tories are having to borrow £150 Million more than what they thought they would be borrowing just to pay J.S.A plus H.B, do you want Ed Miliband to do a Cameron promise the voters the Sun Moon and Stars until he gets in like the Tories DID do you remember the NHS is safe in my hands that is the biggest joke in his Campaign of 2009-2010, also he does not know what state the Countries books are going to be in if and when he gets into power the Unions are taking it out on Ed for what this NASTY Tory Gov't have done he just thinks that jobs are more important than a pay rise it safe guards the lower paid not completely but does protect there job plus Ed would not be asking the public sector workers for another 3% per month towards there pension pots there would have not been another 21/2% rise in the vat,

And when this is explained properly to the Unions and the UK it will clear up what I think is a misunderstanding and crossed wires, there is another 3 years to go before the next GE (maybe) and God and Heaven only knows what state this country is going to be in 2015 one thing I will say Ed would not targeting the low paid and the vulnerable as is this Gov't when people that are doing the right thing by working according to this Tory Gov't are having to go to food banks to keep there families from going hungry and the top 10% are getting off Scot free because there Millions and Billions are in off shore accounts and the top 1% of the population have increased there Millions while the hard working men and women are a lot poorer and I would ask every body to watch the bankers bonuses are due to be paid let see what happens there that will be worth watching.

The NASTY PARTY is alive and kicking they are going to make it easier for employers to hire and FIRE at WILL and the unfair dismissed the goal posts there have been moved from 1 year too 2 years and the unfair dismissed will have too pay all the fees to take there employer to the tribunal and its costly, so where are they supposed to find that sort of money after been dismissed, so this is what Ed Miliband and Ed Balls are having to face at this time what the next 3 years bring is anybodies GUESS?

Whatever the next 3 and a half years bring, I hope every single person who voted Tory at the last general election, is going through hell.

There is something missing from this story, and that is how Mr McClusky and the trade union movement would deal with the deficit, which will still be there come 2015 thanks to the bad economic policies of the present government.

The Unite leader has criticised Mr Milliband, but he failed to put forward his own views on how the deficit can be sorted out.

Ivanhoe wrote.
"Let's get one thing straight, there is no such thing as Tory "mismanagement" ........"

I am terribly sorry Ivanhoe, it seems that I don’t know my place when in such exalted company. If you say something is so, of course that’s just what it is.

You arrogant toad. First you are extremely rude to me for calling the Frogs “Frogs” Yet you are happy with any abuse so long as its thrown at something you don’t like i.e. the Tory/Conservative (big or small bleeding c) party. you have been rude to others and now you jump on your high donkey and have another pop at me. I’m beginning to have a bit of a problem with you Ivanhoe. It seems to me that you are here only to pick fights with people, let me explain something to you.
If a Governments job is to manage a Country, and they make many mistakes whilst doing so. They are phucking mismanaging. You personally call it any damn thing you please, but mismanagement is mismanagement.
As for the rest of your post, again you are IMHO way off the mark. The last thing the Labour party want to be doing, is to pander to just one class in society, especially if that class is incapable of producing wealth. What we need is a Government who will look after the wealth makers whilst making sure the workers and the needy get a fair deal. If Edd Miliband listened to the likes of you, Labour would be as unelectable as they where from 1979 to 1997. It was only when Tony Blair took office that the economy grew for a record ten years, he rid us of most of Thatcher/Majors 3.5 million unemployed, he reduced the massive hospital waiting lists, he introduced the Social Chapter, he did away with Fox Hunting (sort of), pensions went up year on year (albeit not enough, but up is the right direction, they issued free bus passes for pensioners, they introduced the Cold weather payments plus loads more, he made Britain a Country worth (for most) Living in. I agree some where left behind, you only have to read Astra's posts, but you must have seen all the benefits of the Blair Government, yet still want to go back to Government being the puppets of the Unions. Blair spoke of the third way, as I see the third way is to have a balance between the workers and the employers, the employers need to earn, in order to pay the workers wages who in turn spend their money with another employer who pays his staff, and on and on, that wit measured cuts is the only way to get growth in the economy. That was Blair’s original Ideals, unfortunately somewhere along the route he got high jacked and leaned too far to the right and forgetting those lower down. Had it not have been through the masses of publicity by the Tory media machine over Iraq, then the Global Banking Phuck up, I am certain Labour would still be in power now.

Ivanhoe wrote:

Redflag wrote:

blueturando wrote:Do Labour go hunting for the electorate who voted Blair into power 3 times and risk the wrath of the Unions, or side with the core Labour party supporters and the Unions at a risk of being unable to get back the voters who deserted them in the last election?

The scale of the rift between Labour and the unions over Ed Miliband's decision to embrace austerity measures has been made clear as a senior leader warned of long-term implications over the "most serious mistake" the party could have made.
Unions affiliated to Labour have been fuming since shadow chancellor Ed Balls told a conference at the weekend that he would not reverse the Government's planned 1% public sector pay cap, which affects millions of workers.
Unite leader Len McCluskey warned that Mr Miliband was setting Labour on course for electoral "disaster" and undermining his own leadership by accepting Government cuts and the cap on public sector pay.
Mr Miliband hit back against his union critics, insisting that Mr McCluskey was "wrong" to attack his decision to embrace austerity measures.
It has emerged that the leader of the GMB has written to the union's senior officials saying that the speech by Ed Balls may have a "profound impact" on its relationship with the Labour Party.
General secretary Paul Kenny said in the message: "I have spoken to Ed Milliband and Ed Balls to ensure they were aware of how wrong I think the policy they are now following is. It is now time for careful consideration and thought before the wider discussions begin on the long-term implications this new stance by the party has on GMB affiliation.
"It will be a fundamental requirement that the CEC (executive) and Congress determine our way forward after proper debate. I will update everyone as events unfold but I have to say this is the most serious mistake they could have made and the Tories must be rubbing their hands with glee." The GMB declined to comment on the message but confirmed it had been sent.
Mr McCluskey said in an article in The Guardian: "Ed Balls' sudden weekend embrace of austerity and the Government's public sector pay squeeze represents a victory for discredited Blairism at the expense of the party's core supporters. It also challenges the whole course Ed Miliband has set for the party, and perhaps his leadership itself."
Mr Miliband responded in a statement: "Len McCluskey is entitled to his views but he is wrong. I am changing the Labour Party so we can deliver fairness even when there is less money around and that requires tough decisions."

What do you expect he knows the Tories better than most of us he knows that the Tories are having to borrow £150 Million more than what they thought they would be borrowing just to pay J.S.A plus H.B, do you want Ed Miliband to do a Cameron promise the voters the Sun Moon and Stars until he gets in like the Tories DID do you remember the NHS is safe in my hands that is the biggest joke in his Campaign of 2009-2010, also he does not know what state the Countries books are going to be in if and when he gets into power the Unions are taking it out on Ed for what this NASTY Tory Gov't have done he just thinks that jobs are more important than a pay rise it safe guards the lower paid not completely but does protect there job plus Ed would not be asking the public sector workers for another 3% per month towards there pension pots there would have not been another 21/2% rise in the vat,

And when this is explained properly to the Unions and the UK it will clear up what I think is a misunderstanding and crossed wires, there is another 3 years to go before the next GE (maybe) and God and Heaven only knows what state this country is going to be in 2015 one thing I will say Ed would not targeting the low paid and the vulnerable as is this Gov't when people that are doing the right thing by working according to this Tory Gov't are having to go to food banks to keep there families from going hungry and the top 10% are getting off Scot free because there Millions and Billions are in off shore accounts and the top 1% of the population have increased there Millions while the hard working men and women are a lot poorer and I would ask every body to watch the bankers bonuses are due to be paid let see what happens there that will be worth watching.

The NASTY PARTY is alive and kicking they are going to make it easier for employers to hire and FIRE at WILL and the unfair dismissed the goal posts there have been moved from 1 year too 2 years and the unfair dismissed will have too pay all the fees to take there employer to the tribunal and its costly, so where are they supposed to find that sort of money after been dismissed, so this is what Ed Miliband and Ed Balls are having to face at this time what the next 3 years bring is anybodies GUESS?

Whatever the next 3 and a half years bring, I hope every single person who voted Tory at the last general election, is going through hell.

Tuscany, 17/01/2012

"We are READY TO COMMENCE SALVAGE."

What a shame nobody appears capable of salvaging the BRITISH economy.

bobby wrote:Ivanhoe wrote.
"Let's get one thing straight, there is no such thing as Tory "mismanagement" ........"

I am terribly sorry Ivanhoe, it seems that I don’t know my place when in such exalted company. If you say something is so, of course that’s just what it is.

You arrogant toad. First you are extremely rude to me for calling the Frogs “Frogs” Yet you are happy with any abuse so long as its thrown at something you don’t like i.e. the Tory/Conservative (big or small bleeding c) party. you have been rude to others and now you jump on your high donkey and have another pop at me. I’m beginning to have a bit of a problem with you Ivanhoe. It seems to me that you are here only to pick fights with people, let me explain something to you.
If a Governments job is to manage a Country, and they make many mistakes whilst doing so. They are phucking mismanaging. You personally call it any damn thing you please, but mismanagement is mismanagement.
As for the rest of your post, again you are IMHO way off the mark. The last thing the Labour party want to be doing, is to pander to just one class in society, especially if that class is incapable of producing wealth. What we need is a Government who will look after the wealth makers whilst making sure the workers and the needy get a fair deal. If Edd Miliband listened to the likes of you, Labour would be as unelectable as they where from 1979 to 1997. It was only when Tony Blair took office that the economy grew for a record ten years, he rid us of most of Thatcher/Majors 3.5 million unemployed, he reduced the massive hospital waiting lists, he introduced the Social Chapter, he did away with Fox Hunting (sort of), pensions went up year on year (albeit not enough, but up is the right direction, they issued free bus passes for pensioners, they introduced the Cold weather payments plus loads more, he made Britain a Country worth (for most) Living in. I agree some where left behind, you only have to read Astra's posts, but you must have seen all the benefits of the Blair Government, yet still want to go back to Government being the puppets of the Unions. Blair spoke of the third way, as I see the third way is to have a balance between the workers and the employers, the employers need to earn, in order to pay the workers wages who in turn spend their money with another employer who pays his staff, and on and on, that wit measured cuts is the only way to get growth in the economy. That was Blair’s original Ideals, unfortunately somewhere along the route he got high jacked and leaned too far to the right and forgetting those lower down. Had it not have been through the masses of publicity by the Tory media machine over Iraq, then the Global Banking Phuck up, I am certain Labour would still be in power now.

Bobby, I apologise for upsetting you. Again, the Tories never mismanage, their's is an ideological Agenda. And the frogs, are the French. That's manners.

Also it's not the creation of wealth Britain needs, it's a fairer spread of wealth Britain needs. You come across like a Blairite, but I could be wrong.

Apart from the personal bits, which I would rather keep out of - very good post from bobby

I get fed up of people, usualy the old fashioned socialists, who compare Tony Blair to Thatcherism, the Conservatives or to right wing politics.

What Tony Blair did was lead a transformed Labour Party to 3 election victories, and the one reason above any other why people voted for him was stability, the stability for the man in the factory, the stock brocker, the road sweeper, the teacher and the business man, in other words for everyone.

The Labour Party stands absolutely no chance what so ever of been elected without support from the middle classes, or middle England as many people refer to that particular section of society.

As a business man and owner of a couple of small businesses, I do not want to see a large proportion of my earnings taken off me, but I certainly dont mind paying a bit more than people on low incomes because after all I can afford a bit more than someone on minimum wage, Ime a fair man and I believe in fairness, thats why I am not a Conservative.

A moderate left of centre political party akin to the Social Democratic parties of Europe is what I support, its capitalism but with a social conscience, or as some people put it, with social justice, and without the greed and dog eat dog dogma of so many Conservative supporters / voters / members.

I agree with Witchfinder...a very good post from Bobby, apart from the last bit where he blames the 'Tory' Media? Machine over Iraq. I am afraid Bobby that the Tory media machine you are talking about supported Blair and Labour at the time and Iraq is the one unsavoury episode in history you cannot spin or blame your way out of.

As for the rest of your post, you're pretty spot on. Ivanhoe says... it's not the creation of wealth Britain needs, but a fairer distribution of wealth...Well Ivanhoe, you have to create wealth to have wealth to distribute more fairly....Money doesn't grow on trees.
Tony Blair recognised the Labour party had to evolve from the dark days when they seemed totally unelectable due to old fashioned and unworkable socialist ideals. This is why he won 3 elections following many years when the party was in the sh*t. Going back to those old hard line socialist ideals will make you unelectable again and if Labour adopted those ideals in Government we would soon be left behind on the world stage, doomed to become a 3rd world nation.

On my original post.....From a Tory supporters point of view, I think it was quite brave of Balls and Milliband to take this position and not pander to the union paymasters. Maybe its time once again to look to tax payers to fairly fund our political parties, so that Labour are not in the pockets of the Unions and the Tories are not in the pockets of the rich elite

blueturando wrote:I agree with Witchfinder...a very good post from Bobby, apart from the last bit where he blames the 'Tory' Media? Machine over Iraq. I am afraid Bobby that the Tory media machine you are talking about supported Blair and Labour at the time and Iraq is the one unsavoury episode in history you cannot spin or blame your way out of.

As for the rest of your post, you're pretty spot on. Ivanhoe says... it's not the creation of wealth Britain needs, but a fairer distribution of wealth...Well Ivanhoe, you have to create wealth to have wealth to distribute more fairly....Money doesn't grow on trees.
Tony Blair recognised the Labour party had to evolve from the dark days when they seemed totally unelectable due to old fashioned and unworkable socialist ideals. This is why he won 3 elections following many years when the party was in the sh*t. Going back to those old hard line socialist ideals will make you unelectable again and if Labour adopted those ideals in Government we would soon be left behind on the world stage, doomed to become a 3rd world nation.

On my original post.....From a Tory supporters point of view, I think it was quite brave of Balls and Milliband to take this position and not pander to the union paymasters. Maybe its time once again to look to tax payers to fairly fund our political parties, so that Labour are not in the pockets of the Unions and the Tories are not in the pockets of the rich elite

Hi again Bluey. Nice to see you are posting still. Britain as a nation is worth a small fortune. If you want the GNP, ille look it up. And the amount is made up of tax payers money, which needs to be spread fairly.

blueturando wrote:I agree with Witchfinder...a very good post from Bobby, apart from the last bit where he blames the 'Tory' Media? Machine over Iraq. I am afraid Bobby that the Tory media machine you are talking about supported Blair and Labour at the time and Iraq is the one unsavoury episode in history you cannot spin or blame your way out of.

As for the rest of your post, you're pretty spot on. Ivanhoe says... it's not the creation of wealth Britain needs, but a fairer distribution of wealth...Well Ivanhoe, you have to create wealth to have wealth to distribute more fairly....Money doesn't grow on trees.
Tony Blair recognised the Labour party had to evolve from the dark days when they seemed totally unelectable due to old fashioned and unworkable socialist ideals. This is why he won 3 elections following many years when the party was in the sh*t. Going back to those old hard line socialist ideals will make you unelectable again and if Labour adopted those ideals in Government we would soon be left behind on the world stage, doomed to become a 3rd world nation.

On my original post.....From a Tory supporters point of view, I think it was quite brave of Balls and Milliband to take this position and not pander to the union paymasters. Maybe its time once again to look to tax payers to fairly fund our political parties, so that Labour are not in the pockets of the Unions and the Tories are not in the pockets of the rich elite

Again I respond to your post bluey. Thatcher took the easy way out. She appealed to greed and selfishness to get in power and stay in power. That's easy.

The hard part for any decent politician, is to take what I would refere to as the philosophical part, the bit that reads between the lines. And win over the British people this way. Anybody can appeal to greed and self interest to win power and stay in power. Thatcher was just that. "Anybody".

The key point about the Unions is that they exist to defend their members. What is the Labour Party for, other than helping along the careers of a lot of politicians with no principles? There are vastly more trade union members than Labour Party members too. It is silly to try to please the tory press if you believe in anything decent: they are against such stuff.

Ivanhoe......Yes I am still posting Not as much as I would like but it's a busy time of year in my profession, so sometimes I actually have to get me head down at work.

My issue with the more 'far left/socialist' posters on here that you all seemed to have a morbid fixation on Thatcher. It's time you forgot about her and moved on, it's 20 years since she left office and the women is nearly dead and can hardly string 2 words together. You lot are starting to sound like and old fella I know in my street who still hates the germans and would never buy anything made in that country

How can socialism move forward if you are always looking backwards?

How can socialism move forward if you are always looking backwards?

blue. I take your point, and you'll be pleased to learn that I recently prevented an attempt by a member to start yet another thread about Thatcher.

However, remember that those who ignore the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them, and some of us are convinced that the mistakes of the 1930s are being repeated now. We also trace Britain's current problems back to the 1980s, when Thatcher broke the post-war social democratic consensus (known as 'Butskellism') and give us the neoliberalism which unbalanced or destroyed so much of the fabric of society. I guess that's why people still want to talk about the old girl, but I agree with you that it's time to look forward.

How can socialism move forward if you are always looking backwards

?


Indeed Blue,

I know it will hurt much but have a look at a certain A Scargill. He is trying to hold onto his grace and favour flat in the Barbican. The £34,000 upkeep meant not too much when the membership of his union was thousands of men, but now it is down to 1,700 members (due mainly to arfur's ideology and excellent leadership) and removing him is like getting a rat out from under the shed!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1386730/Arthur-Scargill-faces-eviction-1-5m-luxury-apartment-NUM-launch-legal-action.html


McCluskey shows no inclination to move into our time as WE know it!

Dave and Gideon - two SELF PROCLAIMED 'Sons of Thatcher' have openly displayed in public that they are keeping an eye on the past.

So the main protagonists are playing against Milliband who has to be careful, and of all the names I have mentioned in this post, I think Mr. Milliband is someone I feel I can trust.


IMO Scargill GAVE Maggie EVERYTHING she wanted! (and she did not have to throw him a "bung" for his trouble.)

witchfinder wrote:There is something missing from this story, and that is how Mr McClusky and the trade union movement would deal with the deficit, which will still be there come 2015 thanks to the bad economic policies of the present government.

The Unite leader has criticised Mr Milliband, but he failed to put forward his own views on how the deficit can be sorted out.

I agree witchfinder check out my first thread and find out how much I agree with you.

blueturando wrote:Ivanhoe......Yes I am still posting Not as much as I would like but it's a busy time of year in my profession, so sometimes I actually have to get me head down at work.

My issue with the more 'far left/socialist' posters on here that you all seemed to have a morbid fixation on Thatcher. It's time you forgot about her and moved on, it's 20 years since she left office and the women is nearly dead and can hardly string 2 words together. You lot are starting to sound like and old fella I know in my street who still hates the germans and would never buy anything made in that country

How can socialism move forward if you are always looking backwards?

The Germans just bombed us. Thatcher destroyed Britain. Who wants to move on into the desert she made of it?

Which way should Labour go?

Well probably not in the direction of ....
1. Promising to buy a new Royal Yacht
2. Building another Railway line from London to Birmingham
3. Planning a new London Airport to the East of London when most
travellers would come from the other sides of the Capital.
4. Committing an extra £30M to the Opening Ceremony of the Olympics.
5. Allocating £39M "to boost tourism".... In a year when £9Billion has already been spent on the London Olympiad.

Which way should Labour go.
Up, definately Up.

They could try going left, going right hasn't worked out that well.

Bluey, I think you either misunderstood my post or I made an error in my explanation. I didn’t mean the actual Iraq War , I in fact was referring to the aftermath, and the ensuing (I have lost count how many) enquiries. The Tory controlled Media definitely made hay when every one else’s backs where turned. They went on and on in their attempt to discredit Tony Blair over wmd’s and an alleged dodgy dossier.
As for the war itself The Tory Government was as much in favour as where New Labour.
Regarding Thatcher, it wont be too long now, when we can put her evil time in office behind us, as The vultures are already knocking on her door. Many feel as I do. We (Britain) are still suffering from the bitches policies, so I guess she will be dragged into Modern politics, whilst her ideology still lives, even when she doesn’t

blueturando wrote:Ivanhoe......Yes I am still posting Not as much as I would like but it's a busy time of year in my profession, so sometimes I actually have to get me head down at work.

My issue with the more 'far left/socialist' posters on here that you all seemed to have a morbid fixation on Thatcher. It's time you forgot about her and moved on, it's 20 years since she left office and the women is nearly dead and can hardly string 2 words together. You lot are starting to sound like and old fella I know in my street who still hates the germans and would never buy anything made in that country

How can socialism move forward if you are always looking backwards?

Hi bluey, Surely you can see that Thatcher's ideoligy is still running Britain ?

In any commentary upon the state in which Britain finds itself TODAY, it would be rather fatuous to begin the explanation with current events. Without getting too philosophical, where we are now is the inevitable product of previous events: The Norman Conquest, Henry VIII, Drake the Pirate, The Slave Trade, Colonial expansion and two World Wars.

To ignore such factors is hardly different to telling lies, and to leave out the changes which Thatcherism wrought on this Country is to deny the truth. Her policies were avowedely Radical, and Britain will never again be the same as it was.

oftenwrong wrote:In any commentary upon the state in which Britain finds itself TODAY, it would be rather fatuous to begin the explanation with current events. Without getting too philosophical, where we are now is the inevitable product of previous events: The Norman Conquest, Henry VIII, Drake the Pirate, The Slave Trade, Colonial expansion and two World Wars.

To ignore such factors is hardly different to telling lies, and to leave out the changes which Thatcherism wrought on this Country is to deny the truth. Her policies were avowedely Radical, and Britain will never again be the same as it was.

So why are so many fixated with Thatcherism?

Tory administrations have only ever picked up from where the previous Tory government was so rudely interrupted.

Witchfinder quite cortrectly wrote.
"There is something missing from this story, and that is how Mr McClusky and the trade union movement would deal with the deficit, which will still be there come 2015 thanks to the bad economic policies of the present government.

The Unite leader has criticised Mr Milliband, but he failed to put forward his own views on how the deficit can be sorted out."

Another point witchy is that its Mr McClusky who at this moment I believe speaks for himself. I am of the belief that the Trades Union movement is the rank and file members, and I will also suggest that many of them will disagree with the Union Representative. McClusky is not a Union Boss, but a representative, he represents the convenors and the shop stewards who in turn represent the workers on the shop floor. Trades Unions are extremely democratic, Those that represent the rank and file, can only do so at the behest of the membership, and if they where to with hold their usual contribution, they could only do so with the mandate of its members. I think its another case of the press making mischief, and making a mountain out of a molehill, and of course Herr Cameron and co jumping on the bandwagon.
I wish though that Edd Miliband and Edd Balls would make their points more clearly so that every one can understand.

Ivanhoe wrote:

bobby wrote:Ivanhoe wrote.
"Let's get one thing straight, there is no such thing as Tory "mismanagement" ........"

I am terribly sorry Ivanhoe, it seems that I don’t know my place when in such exalted company. If you say something is so, of course that’s just what it is.

You arrogant toad. First you are extremely rude to me for calling the Frogs “Frogs” Yet you are happy with any abuse so long as its thrown at something you don’t like i.e. the Tory/Conservative (big or small bleeding c) party. you have been rude to others and now you jump on your high donkey and have another pop at me. I’m beginning to have a bit of a problem with you Ivanhoe. It seems to me that you are here only to pick fights with people, let me explain something to you.
If a Governments job is to manage a Country, and they make many mistakes whilst doing so. They are phucking mismanaging. You personally call it any damn thing you please, but mismanagement is mismanagement.
As for the rest of your post, again you are IMHO way off the mark. The last thing the Labour party want to be doing, is to pander to just one class in society, especially if that class is incapable of producing wealth. What we need is a Government who will look after the wealth makers whilst making sure the workers and the needy get a fair deal. If Edd Miliband listened to the likes of you, Labour would be as unelectable as they where from 1979 to 1997. It was only when Tony Blair took office that the economy grew for a record ten years, he rid us of most of Thatcher/Majors 3.5 million unemployed, he reduced the massive hospital waiting lists, he introduced the Social Chapter, he did away with Fox Hunting (sort of), pensions went up year on year (albeit not enough, but up is the right direction, they issued free bus passes for pensioners, they introduced the Cold weather payments plus loads more, he made Britain a Country worth (for most) Living in. I agree some where left behind, you only have to read Astra's posts, but you must have seen all the benefits of the Blair Government, yet still want to go back to Government being the puppets of the Unions. Blair spoke of the third way, as I see the third way is to have a balance between the workers and the employers, the employers need to earn, in order to pay the workers wages who in turn spend their money with another employer who pays his staff, and on and on, that wit measured cuts is the only way to get growth in the economy. That was Blair’s original Ideals, unfortunately somewhere along the route he got high jacked and leaned too far to the right and forgetting those lower down. Had it not have been through the masses of publicity by the Tory media machine over Iraq, then the Global Banking Phuck up, I am certain Labour would still be in power now.

Bobby, I apologise for upsetting you. Again, the Tories never mismanage, their's is an ideological Agenda. And the frogs, are the French. That's manners.

Also it's not the creation of wealth Britain needs, it's a fairer spread of wealth Britain needs. You come across like a Blairite, but I could be wrong.

And yet Ed Miliband is having to take stick for his stand I think that is unfair on Ed, The Tory Ideology and Dogma is what is running our economy at the moment and Im wondering when the British public are going to stand up to Scameron and his cohorts one wants a new train set costing £32 Billion another one wants an Airport costing £50 Billion and one wants a Yacht for the Queen costing £60 Million where the FCUK is all this money coming from anybody got any Ideas.

The Yacht aside, which is a ridiculous idfea and one that Im sure will be rejected by the Queen...are you staying the future investment in infrastructure is wrong?

I think what they are staying is that if a fcuk is out of the question, set your expectations a bit lower.

are you staying the future investment in infrastructure is wrong?

No, but do we really need a duplicate railway line from London to Birmingham? If the trains don't stop at a few places in between, the line will be of limited use. If they do stop, it will slow down the journey time and erode much of the benefit of building it.

I believe HS2 would reduce the journey time from London to Birmingham by 30 minutes, and that's supposed to be good for business. The implication is that businessmen don't work on trains, which is not true. What might be of more use would be concerted action to ensure that people can get away to their destinations more quickly when they get off of trains in London and Birmingham. And rather than build new railway lines, why not re-open some of those which, thanks to Dr Beeching, the Tories shut in the 1960s?

I have no idea if it will improve business...maybe if they extend it up to Manachester and Scotland it will, but I believe it will create a good number of jobs too....If not, then it's a waste

But then £15-20 Billion on an unusable NHS IT system was a complete waste too

But then £15-20 Billion on an unusable NHS IT system was a complete waste too.

I think you will find that the figure was £11 billion, and I'm not sure why you think it was unusable. Now we have £3 billion being wasted on destroying the NHS in its current form.

I think the figure depends on who you speak to....11 Billion according to the Mail, but according to others, more like 15-20

Going over old ground, but you know it was a waste as well as I do. I dont have the details of the NHS reforms, but if the Royal college of nursing comes out against it then I would say the government need to have a serious re-think or leave well alone

Quote : "...11 Billion according to the Mail..."

So, that would put the true total at around £ 4.25 ( inc . VAT) ....