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

by blueturando Tue Jan 17, 2012 5:10 pm

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."

by Mel Fri Aug 17, 2012 9:54 am

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

by witchfinder Fri Aug 17, 2012 10:45 am

On the 8th of August the Labour Party launched its campaign for the by election in Corby, but more significantly perhaps is the fact that the campaign was launched in the quaint Northamptonshire town of Thrapston - looking at this place you would think it was typical Tory territory.

The constituency of Corby consists of the town of Corby and areas of rural eastern Northamptonshire, and whilst the old steel town is more traditionaly Labour, the more rural areas tend to be more Conservative, but in essence the constituency is a swing seat.

For Labour to win a convincing victory at the next election, these are the seats they must take, without winning over middle England a victory for Labour would be almost impossible, and Ed Miliband knows this, in my opinion this is why he launched his Corby campaign where he did, its a significant clue to future strategy.

Some might say that he is ignoring the traditional core voters, and I would say give him a chance he dosent need to persuade the loyalists, but he does need to campaign hard where people are floaters.

If Labour was taken back to its stance of the 1970s and 1980s, then middle England and the millions of middle class voters would not give them their votes, and in reality why shouldent Labour stand up for the middle classes as much as the core supporters - most of middle England came from working class backgrounds and many have worked hard to get where they are.

by Ivanhoe Fri Aug 17, 2012 10:57 am

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

What about the Blarism part. ?

by Mel Fri Aug 17, 2012 1:19 pm

"What about the Blarism part. ?"

Oh God Ivanhoe, surely you are not asking me to spell it out for you yet again.?

Perhaps in your favour you have not read my posts on Blair and indeed my relpies to your posts where I have defended blair.

Are you just trying being obstinate or funny, or just trying? Smile

by Ivanhoe Fri Aug 17, 2012 1:52 pm

Mel wrote:"What about the Blarism part. ?"

Oh God Ivanhoe, surely you are not asking me to spell it out for you yet again.?

Perhaps in your favour you have not read my posts on Blair and indeed my relpies to your posts where I have defended blair.

Are you just trying being obstinate or funny, or just trying?

Mel. I had no time for Blair or for Brown, they took Britain's chrish Labour movement to the right. This is what im saying.

Admittedly compared to Cameron, Blair was an angel, but he still ruined the Labour party and movement with the help of Neil Kinnock.

by Mel Fri Aug 17, 2012 2:46 pm

Sorry and sad to say Ivanhoe old Labour would not survive one second in this horrible modern society.

Could it be NL's low interest rate system, hit your investments and that could be why you are so bitter towards Brown and Blair? I cant think of any other good reason although in some of your posts you have tried and with respect failed to give good reasoning.

by Ivanhoe Fri Aug 17, 2012 3:12 pm

Mel wrote:Sorry and sad to say Ivanhoe old Labour would not survive one second in this horrible modern society.

Could it be NL's low interest rate system, hit your investments and that could be why you are so bitter towards Brown and Blair? I cant think of any other good reason although in some of your posts you have tried and with respect failed to give good reasoning.

Mel. Out of curiousity, just how old are you ?, again I have a good reason for asking.

by Mel Sat Aug 18, 2012 9:20 am

Ivanhoe, I'm not as old as you and my wife thinks i'm 21. I can just remember the Queens Coronation but I was not on earth at the beginning of WW11.
Of course I was around during times of old Labour and a good lot they were for the working majority. The Unions made life hell for them, not that I am an anti unionist in any way. However their behaviour paved the way for the excuse Thatcher was looking for to crush them completely, opening the way for mass privatisation and closure of much of our industrial/manufacturing base.
Hence we have problems today having to rely upon the financial sector that she the Witch had to d-regulate to make up for the loss of tax revenue from closed industry.

Since those times and especially now, the Tories have become more and more ruthless, attempting to push us back to how it was before and during the Victorian era. No doubt even you were not on earth at that time Ivanhoe. Smile

In view of the changing and modernised world Labour had to change with the times and yes moved further to the right. Had Blair not done so, we would have had to suffer another term or more of Tory rule.
As it turned out the rich became richer and the poor became less poor, therefore the divide stood the same. Both were better off under Blair and the middle classes also prospered.

by oftenwrong Sat Aug 18, 2012 10:54 am

QUOTE "As it turned out the rich became richer and the poor became less poor, therefore the divide stood the same. Both were better off under Blair and the middle classes also prospered."

Ah, but do the "middle classes" still feel prosperous in the run-up to a 2015 General Election? Gideon's slash-and-burn budget of ill fame messed-up their child benefits, reduced provision of things like nursery-care for working mothers and muddied the threshold for paying higher rate tax. One effect of that is that couples will have to divulge to each other what they are earning so as to avoid arguments with the Tax Man over personal allowances. That should go down VERY well in some families of working professionals.

by Mel Sat Aug 18, 2012 11:14 am

"Ah, but do the "middle classes" still feel prosperous in the run-up to a 2015 General Election?"

That is a DEFINITE NO!!!! OW. Will they be making the same error again by voting Tory or Lib Dem? I doubt it very much. What do you say?

by Ivanhoe Sat Aug 18, 2012 1:04 pm

Mel wrote:Ivanhoe, I'm not as old as you and my wife thinks i'm 21. I can just remember the Queens Coronation but I was not on earth at the beginning of WW11.
Of course I was around during times of old Labour and a good lot they were for the working majority. The Unions made life hell for them, not that I am an anti unionist in any way. However their behaviour paved the way for the excuse Thatcher was looking for to crush them completely, opening the way for mass privatisation and closure of much of our industrial/manufacturing base.
Hence we have problems today having to rely upon the financial sector that she the Witch had to d-regulate to make up for the loss of tax revenue from closed industry.

Since those times and especially now, the Tories have become more and more ruthless, attempting to push us back to how it was before and during the Victorian era. No doubt even you were not on earth at that time Ivanhoe.

In view of the changing and modernised world Labour had to change with the times and yes moved further to the right. Had Blair not done so, we would have had to suffer another term or more of Tory rule.

We did suffer more Tory rule, under Tony Blair. I left school in the 60's so I know what Britain was like compared to now.

We need Labour to go back to the left, put tradesman to work building council houses, return a manufacturing and industry base to Britain, bring in a national minimum wage of £10 per hour, abolish council tax, increase income tax on middle anbd high earners, bring in a higher state pension for our elderly people, abolish means tested and non means tested pensioners handouts.
As it turned out the rich became richer and the poor became less poor, therefore the divide stood the same. Both were better off under Blair and the middle classes also prospered.

by Mel Sat Aug 18, 2012 1:27 pm

"We did suffer more Tory rule, under Tony Blair. I left school in the 60's so I know what Britain was like compared to now."

Oh and there was I thinking you were well into your eighties.
Things were better in many ways after the war and through the sixties. People were move God loving and kinder to eachother, perhaps because the war brought people together. Thatcher changed all that with her dog eat dog doctrine. Now look what we are saddled with. Greed, selfishness and a corrupt govenrment that welcomes greed over everything else.

by Ivanhoe Sat Aug 18, 2012 2:39 pm

Mel wrote:"We did suffer more Tory rule, under Tony Blair. I left school in the 60's so I know what Britain was like compared to now."

Oh and there was I thinking you were well into your eighties.
Things were better in many ways after the war and through the sixties. People were move God loving and kinder to eachother, perhaps because the war brought people together. Thatcher changed all that with her dog eat dog doctrine. Now look what we are saddled with. Greed, selfishness and a corrupt govenrment that welcomes greed over everything else.

Precisely.

by Mel Sat Aug 18, 2012 9:54 pm

Exactly.

by Stox 16 Wed Aug 22, 2012 3:19 am

Mel wrote:"Ah, but do the "middle classes" still feel prosperous in the run-up to a 2015 General Election?"

That is a DEFINITE NO!!!! OW. Will they be making the same error again by voting Tory or Lib Dem? I doubt it very much. What do you say?

Hi Mel
Very good post again my friend, As any middle class voter still was to vote Tory then he or She need to book themselves into a doctors at once. as up to know they have lost so 7% of there disposable income since the Tories took office in 2010. by the time of the next GE some believe this figure could well be close to 15%. so if they really believe in conserving what is left of there disposable income then voting Tory will not do it at all. in fact if they was to get back in then you may as well set fire to 15% of your own bank account.

but maybe they have disposable income to burn? if so vote Tory and they will burn it for you

Where should the Labour Party position itself? (Part 1) - Page 10 Images15

Where should the Labour Party position itself? (Part 1) - Page 10 Images15

by oftenwrong Wed Aug 22, 2012 9:31 am

You read it here first, folks! The Chancellor's autumn budget of 2014 will be the greatest give-away since that episode with loaves and fishes.

by Mel Wed Aug 22, 2012 11:09 am

Indeed it will OW and no doubt the usual gullible members of the electorate will swallow it hook line and stinker.

by Mel Wed Aug 22, 2012 11:10 am

All very true Stoxy. cheers

by Ivanhoe Wed Aug 22, 2012 11:18 am

Mel wrote:Indeed it will OW and no doubt the usual gullible members of the electorate will swallow it hook line and stinker.

I know the vast majority of the voting public are stupid, but they arent that stupid, are they ?

by Stox 16 Sun Aug 26, 2012 12:42 am

Mel wrote:Ivanhoe, I'm not as old as you and my wife thinks i'm 21. I can just remember the Queens Coronation but I was not on earth at the beginning of WW11.
Of course I was around during times of old Labour and a good lot they were for the working majority. The Unions made life hell for them, not that I am an anti unionist in any way. However their behaviour paved the way for the excuse Thatcher was looking for to crush them completely, opening the way for mass privatisation and closure of much of our industrial/manufacturing base.
Hence we have problems today having to rely upon the financial sector that she the Witch had to d-regulate to make up for the loss of tax revenue from closed industry.

Since those times and especially now, the Tories have become more and more ruthless, attempting to push us back to how it was before and during the Victorian era. No doubt even you were not on earth at that time Ivanhoe.

In view of the changing and modernised world Labour had to change with the times and yes moved further to the right. Had Blair not done so, we would have had to suffer another term or more of Tory rule.
As it turned out the rich became richer and the poor became less poor, therefore the divide stood the same. Both were better off under Blair and the middle classes also prospered.

Hi Mel
I agree Mel. but is it just me but do the Tories today seem more bitter than in the past? they seem to be only driven by utter personal greed and bitterness to those they believe blow them?

by Stox 16 Sun Aug 26, 2012 1:00 am

Ivanhoe wrote:
Mel wrote:Indeed it will OW and no doubt the usual gullible members of the electorate will swallow it hook line and stinker.

I know the vast majority of the voting public are stupid, but they arent that stupid, are they ?

Hi Ivanhoe
Well I bloody do not hope so. but then we are dealing with people who still believe the world banking crisis was started by Gordon Brown or the Tories are right now cutting the national debt while borrowing record sums. I even come across some idiot who said that the mess this government is in today was down to the last government. What utter rubbish that is... as just about everyone should know by now of the world banking crisis you would think, as we have not put £357 billion pounds in the banks because of the last government debt. but to keep the dam banking system going.

So who knows with this lot in power, as so far they have half the UK believing all sorts of old rubbish. in fact we have even had the near mythical right winger on here repeat this bull. I just wonder if when they are posting this economic bull if they are shrinking in their computer chair seats like some salted slug. as every set of economic data shows their arguments are little more than self-defeating and as dysfunctional as Gideon's whole economy.

by Stox 16 Sun Aug 26, 2012 1:05 am

Mel wrote:All very true Stoxy.

Thanks Mel

I would not mind if it was not for the other day when some guy reading the Sun Newspaper who thought it was all down to the last 13 years. all this from a guy reading a newspaper with a reading age of just a 7 year old..... now that does take the Mike ha ha ha cheers

by **Ivan** Sun Aug 26, 2012 4:14 pm

It's not often that I criticise Labour politicians, but I do wonder if Peter Hain has taken leave of his senses. He thinks that Labour should prepare for a coalition with the Liberal Democrats after the next election!

Firstly, the Liberal Democrats are toxic. There are likely to be so few of them in Parliament after the next election as to make no difference.

Secondly, what kind of cynical arrangement would it involve? Would the Liberal Democrats trot through the division lobbies to help undo the vile measures that they allowed the Tories to pass?

Thirdly, Hain's talk is both defeatist nonsense and quite unrealistic. The next election will in effect be a two-horse race, and as no ruling party in modern times has increased its percentage of the vote, these evil Tories are hardly likely to do so.

Labour politicians should think of nothing but outright victory, and all the indications are that the next election could produce a result similar to 1997 and 2001.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9500478/Labour-must-prepare-for-Coalition-says-Hain.html

by **Phil Hornby** Sun Aug 26, 2012 4:30 pm

" I do wonder if Peter Hain has taken leave of his senses. He thinks that Labour should prepare for a coalition with the Liberal Democrats after the next election!"

No respectable party would have any links with the LibDems after their post-May 2010 prostitution of themselves. However, is it possible that Hain ( although not the most attractive MP the Labour Party has ever had ) is simply dangling a carrot which he believes may cause some much-needed mischief by encouraging LibDem MPs ( who must already be twitchy about what continued wedlock to the diseased Tories would mean at the Ballot Box in 2015) to contemplate removing themselves from the 'Coalition Agreement' constraints to decency.

Hain probably recognises that a typical LibDem is now so lacking in any integrity that any of them would be perfectly content to act in a way which would make Judas look like Mother Teresa - provided , of course, that they saw a few 'pieces of silver' for themselves and their grubby personal interests.

Accordingly, don't rule out any willingness within the Clegg-inspired ranks to kiss any suitable political posterior in the hope of escaping the just desserts of eventual total annihilation at the Polls...

by oftenwrong Sun Aug 26, 2012 5:41 pm

Peter Hain has also closely involved himself in a project to dam the Severn Estuary so as to generate electricity from the tidal flow.

A useful by-product is expected to be mashed fish.

by Mel Sun Aug 26, 2012 8:24 pm

Phil, what you have said makes a lot of sense and I think Hain is playing the game of "dangling the carrot".

Ow, all sounds rather fishy to me. Smile

by Stox 16 Mon Aug 27, 2012 12:05 pm

Ivan wrote:It's not often that I criticise Labour politicians, but I do wonder if Peter Hain has taken leave of his senses. He thinks that Labour should prepare for a coalition with the Liberal Democrats after the next election!

Firstly, the Liberal Democrats are toxic. There are likely to be so few of them in Parliament after the next election as to make no difference.

Secondly, what kind of cynical arrangement would it involve? Would the Liberal Democrats trot through the division lobbies to help undo the vile measures that they allowed the Tories to pass?

Thirdly, Hain's talk is both defeatist nonsense and quite unrealistic. The next election will in effect be a two-horse race, and as no ruling party in modern times has increased its percentage of the vote, these evil Tories are hardly likely to do so.

Labour politicians should think of nothing but outright victory, and all the indications are that the next election could produce a result similar to 1997 and 2001.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9500478/Labour-must-prepare-for-Coalition-says-Hain.html

I could not agree more with you that Labour politicians should be thinking about outright victory. i would hazard a guess most are doing just that right now Ivan. but if i was being truthful with you, I would have to say I cannot see many Lib/Dem's making it back in the house of commons to even do a deal with. can you?

by blueturando Tue Aug 28, 2012 2:17 pm

You read it here first, folks! The Chancellor's autumn budget of 2014 will be the greatest give-away since that episode with loaves and fishes

Very true of any Chancellor in the run up to any previous GE...Nothing new here, so where's the news.

Labour will need to position itself somewhere...at the moment they are position 'nowhere'......Can any of the Labour supporters here enlighten me?

by Ivanhoe Tue Aug 28, 2012 2:50 pm

blueturando wrote:
You read it here first, folks! The Chancellor's autumn budget of 2014 will be the greatest give-away since that episode with loaves and fishes

Very true of any Chancellor in the run up to any previous GE...Nothing new here, so where's the news.

Labour will need to position itself somewhere...at the moment they are position 'nowhere'......Can any of the Labour supporters here enlighten me?

Im a supporter of "traditional" Labour because I believe in traditional Labour's core values of decency, fairness, and social and economy equality.

And I too am waiting for Mr Ed Milliband to show his metal, as they say.

by blueturando Tue Aug 28, 2012 4:08 pm

In all fairness Ivanhoe, Ed could probably not say another word until the week of the next GE and still be voted in such is the mess of the current administration....but it would be good for Labour traditionalist such as yourself and floating voters to know where they stand and what's the plan

by Ivanhoe Tue Aug 28, 2012 4:45 pm

blueturando wrote:In all fairness Ivanhoe, Ed could probably not say another word until the week of the next GE and still be voted in such is the mess of the current administration....but it would be good for Labour traditionalist such as yourself and floating voters to know where they stand and what's the plan

In all common sense bluey, anybody who appreciates the NHS, a minumum wage, the welfare State, council housing, fair taxation, and the taxes needed to pay for it, should vote Labour.

Anybody who wants all these things but doesnt want to pay for it should vote Tory.

And anybody who doesnt give a shit should stay at home, whilst still getting the benefit of the above.

Frankly bluey, I can understand why Milliband is keeping quiet. Look what he'se up against. Apathy, ignorance, and greed. Again.

by bobby Tue Aug 28, 2012 5:29 pm

Bluturando wrote: In all fairness Ivanhoe, Ed could probably not say another word until the week of the next GE and still be voted in such is the mess of the current administration....but it would be good for Labour traditionalist such as yourself and floating voters to know where they stand and what's the plan.

Well there’s the rub blue. On the lead up to and during the 2010 GE, Herr Cameron didn’t have a policy, the proof is in the ensuing shambles. But its strange isn’t it, how Tories and Ivanhoe now want Labour to publish their Manifesto for the 2015 General Election.

The Tories said they would not let labour know their plans so as not to allow Labour to steal their thunder, we now know that other than several years of planning for the privatisation of the NHS, they had no Ideas, now the Tories and Ivanhoe want Labour to give what ideas they have to a Government totally devoid of anything constructive.

Just what would happen if Ed Miliband published a Manifesto. This Coalition Government would without a doubt gradually take up the Labour policies and with the aid of their tame Media dogs, tell a gullible public “its all our own policies” then hey presto some of the wavering voters would foolishly vote for more lies and useless policies. If you Tories and Ivanhoe want to know what Labour will do when in Power, Wish on.

Why was it OK for Herr Cameron to keep quiet and some of you still voted for him, but its not OK for Ed Miliband to keep his cards close to his chest.

by Ivanhoe Tue Aug 28, 2012 6:41 pm

bobby wrote:Bluturando wrote: In all fairness Ivanhoe, Ed could probably not say another word until the week of the next GE and still be voted in such is the mess of the current administration....but it would be good for Labour traditionalist such as yourself and floating voters to know where they stand and what's the plan.

Well there’s the rub blue. On the lead up to and during the 2010 GE, Herr Cameron didn’t have a policy, the proof is in the ensuing shambles. But its strange isn’t it, how Tories and Ivanhoe now want Labour to publish their Manifesto for the 2015 General Election.

The Tories said they would not let labour know their plans so as not to allow Labour to steal their thunder, we now know that other than several years of planning for the privatisation of the NHS, they had no Ideas, now the Tories and Ivanhoe want Labour to give what ideas they have to a Government totally devoid of anything constructive.

Just what would happen if Ed Miliband published a Manifesto. This Coalition Government would without a doubt gradually take up the Labour policies and with the aid of their tame Media dogs, tell a gullible public “its all our own policies” then hey presto some of the wavering voters would foolishly vote for more lies and useless policies. If you Tories and Ivanhoe want to know what Labour will do when in Power, Wish on.

Why was it OK for Herr Cameron to keep quiet and some of you still voted for him, but its not OK for Ed Miliband to keep his cards close to his chest.

bobby, there is no way on this planet, a right wing Tory Government would ever adopt Labour policies, because each party is ideologically apposed to the other.

However, if Ed Milliband was actually to not play his cards close to his chest, im sure the media would make mince meat of him.

by **Ivan** Tue Aug 28, 2012 9:20 pm

Very true of any Chancellor in the run up to any previous GE...Nothing new here, so where's the news.
Labour will need to position itself somewhere...at the moment they are position 'nowhere'......Can any of the Labour supporters here enlighten me?

blueturando. Perhaps you can tell me what Alistair Darling gave away in his budget of March 2010? A National Insurance increase, I seem to remember, and one which the Tories promised to revoke, yet in the end they only did so for employers not employees.

If the next election doesn’t occur until 2015, any policies announced by Labour now could be well out of date before then. Three years before the last election, the Tories had three policies – to drastically cut Inheritance Tax, to legalise foxhunting, and to match Labour’s spending plans. Need I say more?

However, I do know that Labour is committed to repealing Lansley’s Health and Social Care Act and to renationalising the railways, and you will find Labour’s plan for jobs here:-
http://www.labour.org.uk/plan#plan

by oftenwrong Tue Aug 28, 2012 11:03 pm

Evidently some people need to be reminded that prior to the 2010 General Election, David Cameron made various announcements about what the Tory Party would (or would not) do if elected. I think it is fair to say that EVERY ONE of those commitments has subsequently been reversed or abandoned.

Is that what so-called Labour "supporters" want Ed Miliband to do? Just to have something to twitter about?

by blueturando Wed Aug 29, 2012 12:31 am

Ivanhoe, Bobby and Ivan....I am not saying Ed and Labour should publish a manifesto or even give the coalition ideas on policy. You are right....a week is a long time in politics, let alone the time from now and the next GE and a lot can and will change.
I think what a lot of people would like to know is whether Ed wants to take Labour back to its traditional roots or carry on with the New Labour ideas Blair introduced

by bobby Wed Aug 29, 2012 9:22 am

Good Morning Bluey. My personal feelings on the matter are, I think Ed should not commit to anything at this present time, he as we have absolutely no idea of the mess he will inherit from the previous Government, so any policy made today could and probably would be well past its sell by date come another two and a half years of this useless Coalition.

I remember Ed Saying that he would not say anything he couldn’t achieve, and will not make a promise now only to have to break it later and end up in the position Herr Cameron and his stooge Clegg have got themselves in.

At present we know beyond any shadow of a doubt that the Coalition is based on dishonesty and I hear some say “all politicians are dishonest” and to a point I agree, but there are levels of dishonesty and Herr Cameron’s Party along with the cowardly Lib-Dems have turned lying into a bleeding Science and have become so adept, they now think their fantasies are reality.

Many of the public believed all the bastard Cameron told them either through his tame media machine or personally , and has succeeded in deepening peoples mistrust of anything political. Ed must not (and I don’t think he will) go down that road and must carry on as is and be his own man.

Labour policies I think should be a mixture of old, new and ideas not yet thought of. Ed should not tie himself to any ideology but Govern for all, the wealth earners and the workers as one group has no future without the other.

by oftenwrong Wed Aug 29, 2012 9:31 am

Quite so, bobby. It must be tempting to wait for the Tory-led Coalition to hang itself, but Electors like to think that their votes can actually change things.

Blair's "New Labour" invention relied upon just two fundamental departures from "old" Labour - scrapping Clause 4 concerning Nationalisation and embracing the wealth-creators.

Ed Miliband's main task is to follow suit whilst giving the appearance of a vigorous young new-and-improved Labour that washes even whiter, offering something to everyone. It may need to be a marketing exercise not unlike the one that elected Maggie in 1979. (Labour isn't working).

by Mel Wed Aug 29, 2012 9:36 am

Any ideas released now by Ed would undoubtably be made impossible to implement by the Tories.

He has in fact said in interviews on several occasions that he did not agree with some of Blair's policies and that he also did not agree with some of old Labours policies. I think those comments are sufficient at this stage.

In any case he does not need to risk rocking the boat as Cameron and Co are doing his job nicely for him.

by bobby Wed Aug 29, 2012 9:58 am

Mel wrote : In any case he does not need to risk rocking the boat as Cameron and Co are doing his job nicely for him.

Hello Mel, I think the point Bluey and others are making is, how can Labour expect voters to change their present political party to Labour, if they have no clear idea of what Labour is all about, and I agree. But what Ed is doing is a damage limitation exercise , Will he do more damage in the long term by revealing his hand early, and possibly gaining a number of voters if by not being able to stick to early Manifesto promises, the new voters and some others will leave in their droves.

That said I think Ed should carry on as is.

by bobby Wed Aug 29, 2012 10:00 am

Good post OW. spot on.

by Sponsored content