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

First topic message reminder :

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."

When I was reading this, why did T. Dan Smith come to mind?

Barclays Scandal: Labour 'Clearly Involved'
George Osborne insists Gordon Brown's inner circle have questions to answer about their links to the rate-fixing scandal.
4:38pm UK, Wednesday 04 July 2012
Ed Balls (pictured left) and Gordon Brown at a Labour party conference

George Osborne points the finger at Gordon Brown's aides

Email

Chancellor George Osborne has claimed members of Gordon Brown's government were "clearly involved" in the rate-fixing scandal.

Mr Osborne insists that Mr Brown's inner circle, which includes current shadow chancellor Ed Balls, has "questions to answer" about their role in the manipulation back in 2008.

Tories have been pointing the finger at Labour figures including Mr Balls and ex-Treasury minister Shriti Vadera over claims "senior Whitehall figures" encouraged the so-called lowballing.
http://news.sky.com/story/956139/barclays-scandal-labour-clearly-involved

Where do you think Labour should pois(error) position itself?

That smell of Tory desperation pervades the evening air tonight...

It's not difficult to understand. Gideon says that Labour are to blame for everything that happened during their thirteen-year term of office and also for everything that didn't happen.

Whereas under a Tory-led Coalition the situation is completely reversed.

Support for any of the major political parties shifts and changes like the weather, and of course the opinion polls will shift and change depending on the economic outlook.

One very important point to remember for all Labour supporters is that core supporters cannot win any election alone, both the major parties must try and attract the middle class, middle England vote.

A moderate left of centre party which promotes enterprize and capitalism AND has a social conscience based upon the social democratic tradition will attract mass support, whereas a more radical, left wing political party will in my view attract a much more narrow group of voters.

The other thing which the electorate will not tollerate, is going back to the days of trade unions interfering in the running of the country, and as much as UNITE may not like it, its a fact.

The message is well-understood in Parliament - the British electorate will never return extremists in sufficient numbers to form an administration.

Accordingly all the main Political Parties must jostle each other for the middle ground, not unlike a Rugby match. In that context I would choose Ed Balls over Gideon every time.

That smell of Tory desperation pervades the evening air tonight

And when the truth eventually does come out, I'm sure you'll still be in denial...It a Labour trait we are all familiar with

All quiet on the leftie front?

It all started to go wrong in 1997 when spin became more acceptable to substance.

I thought I heard the sound of yawning just then....but it may have been a gust of unwelcome wind....

The period between September 1939 and several months later was, and is still, referred to as "The phoney war" because nothing much seemed to happen.

A similar description might be applied to the period we are experiencing right now, with a General Election date setting the horizon whilst Politicians tread water.

When considering the evidence of wealth redistributed substantially from the general workforce into the hands of the top few % over the past 30yrs (detailed evidence is posted on this boards economics thread), it becomes evermore frustrating perusing forums such as this chock full of posters still happy to sit astride the Lab / Con see-saw. No matter which end of that rotting wood you give your weight to, it seems clear you are basically supporting lies, corruption, and greed over truth, decency, and justice. Arguing that Labour introduced 'minimum wage', support the NHS, etc holds little weight since during their 13yr tenure they continued redistibuting wealth from the bottom to the top. The tories do the same. The main political parties in this country are morally bankrupt; and it's immensely saddening to see supposed intelligent posters here apparently bereft of options aside from blinkeredly clinging to the two horse see-saw.

Mark my words this country will, in the coming years, descend into chaos and the state will lose control.

Good post Sickchip...and so very true

Bring on the tumbrils!!

Everybody's an expert on what's wrong, but nobody has a plan for setting things right, it seems.


History lesson:

"The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled,
public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be
tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should
be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to
work, instead of living on public assistance."
- Cicero - 55 BC

Whilst history can inform and provide examples to follow or not - it is folly and foolish to base one's beliefs entirely on the 'false' notion of cycles and precedents. It also signifies emotional detachment, arrogance, and a foolish ignorance of 'un'precedented events and developments. A blind adherence to the examples of history is as ignorant, and illogical, as a belief in god.

sickchip 2012

OK right,

But, What is happening to us now, is described PERFECTLY, by a Roman Statesman over 2000 years ago, WHY?







9) “What is morally wrong can never be advantageous, even when it enables you to make some gain that you believe to be to your advantage. The mere act of believing that some wrongful course of action constitutes an advantage is pernicious.”

Gordon Bennet, wish Cicero were about now, Cameron would have to be more careful!


Not to know what has been transacted in former times is to be always a child. If no use is made of the labors of past ages, the world must remain always in the infancy of knowledge.
Cicero
Roman author, orator, & politician (106 BC - 43 BC)

astra wrote:OK right,

But, What is happening to us now, is described PERFECTLY, by a Roman Statesman over 2000 years ago, WHY?

....no it's not - unless you want it to fit (because it feels comfortable?). The present situation is far more complex - and I'm sure if Cicero were present now he would see that and reach different conclusions.

A common misnomer/belief is that 'history repeats itself' - it doesn't.....time marches on and is difficult to predict. Some seem happy to 'take comfort' in history when viewing current affairs - they relish the notion that events are 'merely' cyclic and natural - or human nature. I guess those notions provide comfort, and afford one an air of world weary resignation; in fact those notions are wrong and lazy.

Then what of the arrogance of politicians and bankers since 1979? Cicero describes it well.

A balanced Budget, when did we last have one of those?
Treasury refilled? Even if Branson were chancellor, it would take YEARS to put back in what Brown gave away!
He even takes on subsistance

If the bories had had a JOB IN PLACE for every man / woman who worked in the heavy industry, the culture of subsistance would not now be considered! It is why countries like Germany, America, Russia, China, Brazil and Chile do NOT close down their Heavy (Smoky Smelly) Industries. YES the Nationalised Industry was a cost, but I argue, they were far far less of a cost to the exchequer than what is happening now!


And There is NO value can be placed on the damage done to the spirit of the population as done by present and past gubmints.

I've been thinking a lot about the OP question and I think that the Labour Party needs to position itself pretty much just as New Labour did.

New Labour under Tony Blair was great. It only went wrong because Tony Blair got a bit too God-like, and because of the war. The actual path that the Party was taking worked quite well.

I like Left ideas in a way - the "tree hugging" ideals - but they don't appeal to people, and I'm not sure that they improve the country anyway. They rely too much on people to do the right thing. I think people need more of a push.

I want a good welfare state, but I also want benefits scroungers to be dealt with. I'm well aware that the big businesses and the banks (the other end of the scale from the benefits claimants) are more of a drain than the benefits claimants, but BOTH need to be dealt with, and it's frustrating for those who work hard and give to society to watch others not bother and still get on happily with life. This is the reason why people become cynical.

I'm seeing things a little differently now that I live in a less affluent area of North London. I grew up in a middle class part of town, where everyone worked and there were no significant problems. It was a lot easier to be socialist! Now I live in a multicultural area where more seem to be on benefits than those who work, I've seen a lot of crime, and the cultures don't particularly mix because those from minority races seem to stick with each other. It's a frustrating place to live.

When I come home in the dark, there are groups of hoodies hanging around doing who knows what. When I'm around during the day, I have people conversing loudly in their own language around me. No one seems to go to work, and we seem to get a lot of police presence - there was a shooting a few days ago, and the main road leading to mine was closed off. A week before that, five police cars pulled up outside the house directly opposite the entrance to my flats. About a week before that, someone decided to set a bin on fire. The flames licked the side of someone's car, and could easily have caused carnage. Piles of litter get strewn all over the place, even though we have loads of huge bins, because no one cares. People just seem to do what they fancy, outside the law. Lovely.

Much as I don't want a hardline right wing government, I do want one that isn't afraid to tackle these issues. The problem is that the more pressure you take off people to be upstanding members of society, the less they bother. I don't think positive incentives are enough - I think people do need a bit of a push. Ed Miliband seems to be starting to lean this way a little. He doesn't come across like a soft touch.

If he continues to sound a bit more hardline than the socialist of the Labour Party, then I think he will appeal increasingly to the electorate.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not converting to a Tory by any means. I'm just saying that I don't believe that Old Labour is the way forward.

Hence the popularity of gated communities among a specific group of the population.

Evidence of Private excess screened from the popular gaze.

The simple answer to the question in the title of this thread is, in the political centre.

You can't run a country effectively from either the extreme left or the extreme right.

Ultimately you have to try and serve the majority of people as best you can which means having to make compromises.

The track record of fanatics and extremists in power is depressing and it would be insane for Labour to move to the left when they are ahead in the polls more or less by doing nothing!

A backward-looking Labour party is unlikely to attract the British voter at the next General Election, so hopefully they'll produce some new ideas in time to head-off the Tories, who look forward to governing on their own. They do!

"You can't run a country effectively from either the extreme left or the extreme right."

Indeed biglin, Tony Blair had it right and unfortunately suffered due to the hype regarding the Iraq war.

‘Jobs for the boys’ row after Labour stalwart Tom McCabe gets £50,000 job
Tom McCabe lost his Holyrood seat in 2011.

By SCOTT MACNAB
Published on Saturday 21 July 2012 02:23

A FORMER Labour government minister is at the centre of a cronyism row after landing a lucrative policy role with Glasgow City Council.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/jobs-for-the-boys-row-after-labour-stalwart-tom-mccabe-gets-50-000-job-1-2424314

Opposition parties have complained to the Labour-run council’s legal officials after Tom McCabe, a finance minister in the last Labour/Liberal Democrat administration at Holyrood, landed a role as a policy manager with a salary of almost £50,000.

oftenwrong wrote:A backward-looking Labour party is unlikely to attract the British voter at the next General Election, so hopefully they'll produce some new ideas in time to head-off the Tories, who look forward to governing on their own. They do!

People will well and truly have removed their blinkers by then, so the tories can forget that! I hope they rot in hell the lot of them!

Adele Carlyon wrote:

oftenwrong wrote:A backward-looking Labour party is unlikely to attract the British voter at the next General Election, so hopefully they'll produce some new ideas in time to head-off the Tories, who look forward to governing on their own. They do!

People will well and truly have removed their blinkers by then, so the tories can forget that! I hope they rot in hell the lot of them!

I think by 2015 next G.E. the Tories will have ripped off the blinkers from the UK public that they do not have a hope in HELL of getting voted in at the next election, not unless they use foul moves to get in.

Redflag wrote:

I think by 2015 next G.E. the Tories will have ripped off the blinkers from the UK public that they do not have a hope in HELL of getting voted in at the next election, not unless they use foul moves to get in.

Tories use foul moves? What can you be thinking of?

I know....as if!

sickchip wrote:Whilst history can inform and provide examples to follow or not - it is folly and foolish to base one's beliefs entirely on the 'false' notion of cycles and precedents. It also signifies emotional detachment, arrogance, and a foolish ignorance of 'un'precedented events and developments. A blind adherence to the examples of history is as ignorant, and illogical, as a belief in god.

sickchip 2012

It's remarkably refreshing when a Commentator is willing to confess total ignorance of our History.

Winston Churchill is universally acknowledged as the saviour of Britain in WW2, but his government was roundly defeated in 1945. Why was that? If you are not aware of history you might suppose that it was due to the confluence of Mars being in conflict with the hyperion of Saturn. Actually the emergence of Attlee's Labour Government was entirely due to the Public realisation that Churchill intended to maintain the status quo ante pre-war Master/Servant relationship, along with supremacy for the Toffs. Survivors of the conflict were having none of it, and consigned "their betters" to the small-print. Tories have been fighting a rearguard action ever since, and intend to form a Government of Toffs in 2015, probably with Boris as Leader. Any student of History can see that, sickchip.

And as if the Labour Party was lily-white and never used dirty tricks or spin!

The wrong sort of people will always be in power because only the wrong sort of people will ever want power!

" Yeah, they're all bastards" should be a winning slogan at the next General Election.
Which Party will adopt it, though?

oftenwrong wrote:" Yeah, they're all bastards" should be a winning slogan at the next General Election.
Which Party will adopt it, though?

I wonder whether it could actually work.

As soon as a politician says something negative about himself and/or others, it is referred to as "refreshing". So you never know...

oftenwrong wrote:

Redflag wrote:

I think by 2015 next G.E. the Tories will have ripped off the blinkers from the UK public that they do not have a hope in HELL of getting voted in at the next election, not unless they use foul moves to get in.

Tories use foul moves? What can you be thinking of?

I lived through the Maggot years so I have a good idea the way they think, they will want to get back in by hook or by crook, they will not want to be known is the "One Term Firm" thats is why my thinking went the way it did.

I agree Red, that is the way they normally think. This time though they IMO knew from the very start that they would not last more than one term, if that.
The reason is simple, get into power and reverse everything NL have put in place, for the benefit of the few, the wealthy. Scorched earth comes to mind.
Having ultimately achieved their goal, they will be happy to have had 5yrs to have done the damage knowning the almost certain risk of holding only one term in office.

oftenwrong wrote:

sickchip wrote:Whilst history can inform and provide examples to follow or not - it is folly and foolish to base one's beliefs entirely on the 'false' notion of cycles and precedents. It also signifies emotional detachment, arrogance, and a foolish ignorance of 'un'precedented events and developments. A blind adherence to the examples of history is as ignorant, and illogical, as a belief in god.

sickchip 2012

It's remarkably refreshing when a Commentator is willing to confess total ignorance of our History.

Winston Churchill is universally acknowledged as the saviour of Britain in WW2, but his government was roundly defeated in 1945. Why was that? If you are not aware of history you might suppose that it was due to the confluence of Mars being in conflict with the hyperion of Saturn. Actually the emergence of Attlee's Labour Government was entirely due to the Public realisation that Churchill intended to maintain the status quo ante pre-war Master/Servant relationship, along with supremacy for the Toffs. Survivors of the conflict were having none of it, and consigned "their betters" to the small-print. Tories have been fighting a rearguard action ever since, and intend to form a Government of Toffs in 2015, probably with Boris as Leader. Any student of History can see that, sickchip.

Yes. I guess things are exactly the same now, ow. Keep satisfying yourself with broad brushstrokes - and you'll render detail unimportant. A dissapointinting post by your usual standards. Don't treat history like a comfort blanket.

All History is bunk (Henry Ford)

Henry Ford is history now, like it or not.

tlttf wrote:‘Jobs for the boys’ row after Labour stalwart Tom McCabe gets £50,000 job
Tom McCabe lost his Holyrood seat in 2011.

By SCOTT MACNAB
Published on Saturday 21 July 2012 02:23

A FORMER Labour government minister is at the centre of a cronyism row after landing a lucrative policy role with Glasgow City Council.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/jobs-for-the-boys-row-after-labour-stalwart-tom-mccabe-gets-50-000-job-1-2424314

Opposition parties have complained to the Labour-run council’s legal officials after Tom McCabe, a finance minister in the last Labour/Liberal Democrat administration at Holyrood, landed a role as a policy manager with a salary of almost £50,000.

Most of the cabinet of today (Tory) will end up with bank jobs or the City or even on the board of some of the big companies they have cut there tax Bill for, just as the Maggots cabinet did, some of them even got jobs with the public services that the Maggot sold to friends of the Tory party.

Mel wrote:I agree Red, that is the way they normally think. This time though they IMO knew from the very start that they would not last more than one term, if that.
The reason is simple, get into power and reverse everything NL have put in place, for the benefit of the few, the wealthy. Scorched earth comes to mind.
Having ultimately achieved their goal, they will be happy to have had 5yrs to have done the damage knowning the almost certain risk of holding only one term in office.

a Very fair summary Mel in my view

Redflag wrote:

tlttf wrote:‘Jobs for the boys’ row after Labour stalwart Tom McCabe gets £50,000 job
Tom McCabe lost his Holyrood seat in 2011.

By SCOTT MACNAB
Published on Saturday 21 July 2012 02:23

A FORMER Labour government minister is at the centre of a cronyism row after landing a lucrative policy role with Glasgow City Council.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/jobs-for-the-boys-row-after-labour-stalwart-tom-mccabe-gets-50-000-job-1-2424314

Opposition parties have complained to the Labour-run council’s legal officials after Tom McCabe, a finance minister in the last Labour/Liberal Democrat administration at Holyrood, landed a role as a policy manager with a salary of almost £50,000.

Most of the cabinet of today (Tory) will end up with bank jobs or the City or even on the board of some of the big companies they have cut there tax Bill for, just as the Maggots cabinet did, some of them even got jobs with the public services that the Maggot sold to friends of the Tory party.

I would beat they have new jobs lined up within the city of London already Red

Blamhappy wrote:I've been thinking a lot about the OP question and I think that the Labour Party needs to position itself pretty much just as New Labour did.

New Labour under Tony Blair was great. It only went wrong because Tony Blair got a bit too God-like, and because of the war. The actual path that the Party was taking worked quite well.

I like Left ideas in a way - the "tree hugging" ideals - but they don't appeal to people, and I'm not sure that they improve the country anyway. They rely too much on people to do the right thing. I think people need more of a push.

I want a good welfare state, but I also want benefits scroungers to be dealt with. I'm well aware that the big businesses and the banks (the other end of the scale from the benefits claimants) are more of a drain than the benefits claimants, but BOTH need to be dealt with, and it's frustrating for those who work hard and give to society to watch others not bother and still get on happily with life. This is the reason why people become cynical.

I'm seeing things a little differently now that I live in a less affluent area of North London. I grew up in a middle class part of town, where everyone worked and there were no significant problems. It was a lot easier to be socialist! Now I live in a multicultural area where more seem to be on benefits than those who work, I've seen a lot of crime, and the cultures don't particularly mix because those from minority races seem to stick with each other. It's a frustrating place to live.

When I come home in the dark, there are groups of hoodies hanging around doing who knows what. When I'm around during the day, I have people conversing loudly in their own language around me. No one seems to go to work, and we seem to get a lot of police presence - there was a shooting a few days ago, and the main road leading to mine was closed off. A week before that, five police cars pulled up outside the house directly opposite the entrance to my flats. About a week before that, someone decided to set a bin on fire. The flames licked the side of someone's car, and could easily have caused carnage. Piles of litter get strewn all over the place, even though we have loads of huge bins, because no one cares. People just seem to do what they fancy, outside the law. Lovely.

Much as I don't want a hardline right wing government, I do want one that isn't afraid to tackle these issues. The problem is that the more pressure you take off people to be upstanding members of society, the less they bother. I don't think positive incentives are enough - I think people do need a bit of a push. Ed Miliband seems to be starting to lean this way a little. He doesn't come across like a soft touch.

If he continues to sound a bit more hardline than the socialist of the Labour Party, then I think he will appeal increasingly to the electorate.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not converting to a Tory by any means. I'm just saying that I don't believe that Old Labour is the way forward.

Blamhappy, I want Labour to return to it's core values, ie it's core left wing values. It's roots, Labour is'nt Labour being Blairite.

Also, im not afraid to say that I do not prescribe to this "benefit scrounger" way of thinking.

What Britain needs is a return to an industrial & manufacturing base, council houses for people who cant afford to buy, a decent minimum wage, and a fair tax system. Get that right, and everything else will fall into place.

Benefit scroungers may exists, but they arent worth takling via the system, because by doing this, the system effects everybody else, as is happening now.

Benefit scroungers arent a problem, the right wing Tory's and Blairsm were the problem, and if I had Blair with me now, I would tell him to his face, and Ide say why.

I have never prescribed to this "benefit scrounger" way of thinking, I find this type of thinking bigoted and descriminative. With all due respect to yourself.

Ivanhoe,
I strongly agree with you on all of it except the "Blairism" part.