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 bobby Wed Aug 29, 2012 10:00 am

Good post OW. spot on.

by blueturando Wed Aug 29, 2012 4:20 pm

John Rentoul kicked things off in yesterday's Independent on Sunday. Whatever doubts there may be about Osborne's strategy, ability and popularity there can be no doubt that at the heart of the Coalition there is a strong PM-Chancellor relationship. Labour, in contrast, seems in danger of replicating the Brown-Blair tensions. Rentoul writes: "Ed Miliband and Ed Balls have been getting on particularly badly recently, although each has long found the other trying." The uber-Blairite journalist implies that the relationship could deteriorate once serious efforts begin to put content on that blank piece of paper which is currently the Labour policy review.

In today's Times (£) Sam Coates lifts the veil on what the tensions might be. He suggests that Ed Miliband does not share Ed Balls' wish to rebuild relations with the City while the Labour leader was disconcerted by the Shadow Chancellor's suggestion that he would bank all of the Coalition's cuts. Team Miliband regard Mr Balls as "high maintenance" while Team Balls think Mr Miliband lacks a clear vision for the Labour Party.

http://conservativehome.blogs.com

by Ivanhoe Wed Aug 29, 2012 4:29 pm

blueturando wrote:John Rentoul kicked things off in yesterday's Independent on Sunday. Whatever doubts there may be about Osborne's strategy, ability and popularity there can be no doubt that at the heart of the Coalition there is a strong PM-Chancellor relationship. Labour, in contrast, seems in danger of replicating the Brown-Blair tensions. Rentoul writes: "Ed Miliband and Ed Balls have been getting on particularly badly recently, although each has long found the other trying." The uber-Blairite journalist implies that the relationship could deteriorate once serious efforts begin to put content on that blank piece of paper which is currently the Labour policy review.

In today's Times (£) Sam Coates lifts the veil on what the tensions might be. He suggests that Ed Miliband does not share Ed Balls' wish to rebuild relations with the City while the Labour leader was disconcerted by the Shadow Chancellor's suggestion that he would bank all of the Coalition's cuts. Team Miliband regard Mr Balls as "high maintenance" while Team Balls think Mr Miliband lacks a clear vision for the Labour Party.

http://conservativehome.blogs.com

Interesting that John Rentoul wrote a book in the 80's I believe, headed "The rich get richer". The growth of inequality in Britain in the 80's.

I have this book.

by **Phil Hornby** Wed Aug 29, 2012 5:08 pm

" ...Sam Coates lifts the veil ..."

Well, that clinches it then. No more need be said.

Presumably, if some other hack speculatively 'decides' tomorrow that Cameron is rogering Mrs Osborne and goes into print, then that will be another 'veil lifted' and further debate on the matter is pointless.

I thought we gave up long ago believing what the papers say... Shocked

by bobby Wed Aug 29, 2012 7:17 pm

Bluey wrote: John Rentoul kicked things off in yesterday's Independent on Sunday.

Ms Boycott, 46, the co-founder of Spare Rib and Virago publishing, has edited the Independent on Sunday since October 1996. She has also worked at the Daily Mail,

Not only that, but since when has the Independent on Sunday get published on Tuesday ( I gather you read an old paper)

I must be honest blue, but just what else would you expect from an out and out Tory editor, or from a link to Conservative home.

The difference is Bluey, no matter if they do or dont get on, neither is as incompetent as the two incumbents we now have, I really think you are scraping the bottom of an empty barrel to think we of the left will quake in our boots at such right wing tosh..

by oftenwrong Wed Aug 29, 2012 8:20 pm

I heard that Nick Clegg wants to make the Rich pay higher taxes in order to refloat Britain's Economy. Is that another newspaper invention? Can't see his Tory partners-in-crime going along with that.

by blueturando Wed Aug 29, 2012 11:08 pm

I must be honest blue, but just what else would you expect from an out and out Tory editor, or from a link to Conservative home

Exactly Bobby, this is what I would expect from Conservative home, just the same as what I would expect from the items Ivan regularly posts from Labour and Left wing blogs....it doesn't mean either is untrue, but it does point out that if Labour are confused and at loggerheads on which direction to take, then what chance do Labour supporters or floating voters have of knowing

by **Ivan** Wed Aug 29, 2012 11:15 pm

One difference might be that I try to post items which contain facts supported by sources, rather than mischievous suppositions from Tory writers with little else to do in what is traditionally known as 'the silly season' for news.

by witchfinder Tue Sep 11, 2012 10:47 pm

There are actualy some so called "left wing" ideas which have widespread appeal, and even amongst some Tory voters, like for example the re-nationalisation of the railways which is a fairly popular proposal.

I do not believe that a radical agenda needs to be pigeon holed into left or right, or moderate or hard-lined, a radical agenda should fire the imagination and not be afraid to propose things that will make people sit up and listen.

Apparently the Labour Party is about to announce a new set of policies and proposals which I guess may be rolled out at the conference, this conference season is the begining of a long run up to the next election.

Its going to be an interesting few weeks - especialy the Lib Dem Conference with such a lot of unhappy members.

by oftenwrong Tue Sep 11, 2012 11:20 pm

Richard Branson's determination not to go quietly over the question of the West-coast Railway line raises an interesting dilemma for the new Transport Minister. If legal action is still going through the Courts on December 1st. neither Virgin nor First Western will have a Licence to run that Railway line, which therefore becomes the responsibility of Government to maintain, as it must.

What would you call that if you were the Labour Party? Nationalisation?

by oftenwrong Sun Sep 30, 2012 10:58 pm

Many people are clamouring for an answer to the topic-heading during the Labour Party Annual Conference, but don't seem to realise that this Parliament is only half-way through its current term - barring unforeseen circumstances.

It would be madness to betray future intentions so far ahead of the likely date of a General Election.

by blueturando Mon Oct 01, 2012 12:43 am

I am sure there are many voters out there looking for someone to come up with a credible alternative to the Coalitions austerity measures, but so far they have a Labour party that says it will not change any of the cuts made by them.
Personally I don't think Labour have an econimic plan to deal with the present situation, as their only ever plan is to tax and spend. Right now they would not be able to do this, so are probably at a loss for other ideas. If any you knowledgable people know otherwise I would be happy to hear you

Ed is still very unpopular, even among Labour voters....and now his brother has weighed in and also doesnt think he's up to the job of being a future primeminister.
I can imagine the bull crap that with come back my way about how wonderfull Ed is and I hope the rest of the party think the same as some of the posters here, because as a Tory I would be delighted to have Ed leading the Labour party at the next election

by Mel Mon Oct 01, 2012 8:43 am

" as a Tory I would be delighted to have Ed leading the Labour party at the next election"

Still living in hope then blue? Ed or not your lot are out on their ears, make no mistake, so brace yourself.

Your lots austerity measures are not working, as no growth is following.
Of course the intention was never to prioritise growth, onl revesrsal of everything Labour put in place to assist the masses and more. More in fact than the Witch administered during her years of distruction.

by Redflag Mon Oct 01, 2012 9:38 am

blueturando wrote:I am sure there are many voters out there looking for someone to come up with a credible alternative to the Coalitions austerity measures, but so far they have a Labour party that says it will not change any of the cuts made by them.
Personally I don't think Labour have an econimic plan to deal with the present situation, as their only ever plan is to tax and spend. Right now they would not be able to do this, so are probably at a loss for other ideas. If any you knowledgable people know otherwise I would be happy to hear you

Ed is still very unpopular, even among Labour voters....and now his brother has weighed in and also doesnt think he's up to the job of being a future primeminister.
I can imagine the bull crap that with come back my way about how wonderfull Ed is and I hope the rest of the party think the same as some of the posters here, because as a Tory I would be delighted to have Ed leading the Labour party at the next election

Well no difference there then between Tory and Labour, because the Tories did not have any ideas when they came into power in 2010 the proof of that is as plain as the nose on your face Austerity Austerity Austerity and Fcuk All growth, as for Labour not sharing there policies they DO NOT NEED TOO until just before the next G.E and they must have them now just in case there is an earlier G.E which the way things are looking that is more of a possibility they way things are going between the Tories and the L/Ds.

by bobby Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:17 am

Blueturando said: Personally I don't think Labour have an economic plan to deal with the present situation, as their only ever plan is to tax and spend. Right now they would not be able to do this, so are probably at a loss for other ideas. If any you knowledgeable people know otherwise I would be happy to hear you.

Hello Bluey. If you actually believe what you have said, how come you where taken in by Herr Cameron who had even less to say prior to the last GE. The thing is Blue, had Labour not lost the last Election, it could be argued (and will be) that we wouldn't be in the mess we now find ourselves, heading for an even bigger mess.

What I find difficulty in understanding is how you still call yourself a Tory. The present Tory party are absolutely nothing like the party that presented themselves to the electorate prior to May 10 2010, they have not stuck to anything they promised in their Manifesto (along with their partners in crime and have done many things they prommised they wouldnt.

Blue I very much doubt you would purchase a motor from a dealer who is known to be inherently dishonest, yet you quite happily put your faith in a dishonest Conservative Party, to run our Country, To me it just don't make no sense.

Or is it you have found a way to wind us left leaning amateur politico’s up.

by Ivanhoe Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:28 am

blueturando wrote:I am sure there are many voters out there looking for someone to come up with a credible alternative to the Coalitions austerity measures, but so far they have a Labour party that says it will not change any of the cuts made by them.
Personally I don't think Labour have an econimic plan to deal with the present situation, as their only ever plan is to tax and spend. Right now they would not be able to do this, so are probably at a loss for other ideas. If any you knowledgable people know otherwise I would be happy to hear you

Ed is still very unpopular, even among Labour voters....and now his brother has weighed in and also doesnt think he's up to the job of being a future primeminister.
I can imagine the bull crap that with come back my way about how wonderfull Ed is and I hope the rest of the party think the same as some of the posters here, because as a Tory I would be delighted to have Ed leading the Labour party at the next election

Bluey, The next Labour Government needs to build social housing on mass. Thus putting tradesmen to work. Britain needs to ditch the markets, and return to the role of the State, but this would income tax increases on the middle classes and top earners.

Then the ecnomy would look after itself.

by witchfinder Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:48 am

Ed is not, was not my choice as Labour leader, but he is the leader and all Labour voters and supporters must rally around him.

For someone who was branded "Red Ed" and "in the pockets of the unions" he is showing his true worth in telling the union leaders that they dont run the show -- well done Ed.

The deficit has got to be repaired, this is an unquestionable and undeniable fact of life, no economist who is taken seriously will argue to the contrary.
But repairing the deficit does not have to be done by tomorrow, it can be fixed over a longer period than that embarked upon by the present set of incompetents.

The deficit can also be repaired by implementing FAIR policies, whereby the richest people and the wealthiest businesses and banks pay more, and where the least well off pay the least, this is exactly the course which Francois Hollande has set upon in France, economicly sound but fair.

The Labour Party when elected back to government will be the servants of "The People" not the trade unions, the Labour Party must never go back to those dark days of been unelectable, where union leaders dictate policy.
The party must implement compassionate and responsible capitalism, fairness, it must be a friend to private enterprise and public services alike.

by Ivanhoe Mon Oct 01, 2012 11:24 am

witchfinder wrote:Ed is not, was not my choice as Labour leader, but he is the leader and all Labour voters and supporters must rally around him.

For someone who was branded "Red Ed" and "in the pockets of the unions" he is showing his true worth in telling the union leaders that they dont run the show -- well done Ed.

The deficit has got to be repaired, this is an unquestionable and undeniable fact of life, no economist who is taken seriously will argue to the contrary.
But repairing the deficit does not have to be done by tomorrow, it can be fixed over a longer period than that embarked upon by the present set of incompetents.

The deficit can also be repaired by implementing FAIR policies, whereby the richest people and the wealthiest businesses and banks pay more, and where the least well off pay the least, this is exactly the course which Francois Hollande has set upon in France, economicly sound but fair.

The Labour Party when elected back to government will be the servants of "The People" not the trade unions, the Labour Party must never go back to those dark days of been unelectable, where union leaders dictate policy.
The party must implement compassionate and responsible capitalism, fairness, it must be a friend to private enterprise and public services alike.

I personally never gave a fig who leads the Labour paty, or a Labour Government.

Labour were always the party for the disadvanted, the poor, the ill, the disabled, which could be anyone of us, at any time.

I want Ed Milliband to take Labour back to it's core values of decency and fairness, of a fair and equal distribution of wealth.

I have never voted Labour for myself. I have always voted Labour because Labour always look after the poor, the elderly ect.

by **Ivan** Mon Oct 01, 2012 11:33 am

the Labour Party must never go back to those dark days of been unelectable, where union leaders dictate policy.

witchfinder. When was that exactly? Certainly not in the late 1970s. It was Jim Callaghan's policy of not listening to the unions, and imposing a 5% ceiling on pay rises when inflation was running at 10%, that caused the so-called 'winter of discontent'.

Personally, I don't consider 'unions' to be a dirty word. Unions consist of 6.5 million working people in the UK, and my union was there for me when I needed it some years ago. Unions represent a lot more people than the unaccountable banks and multinational corporations, which, to use a well-worn cliche, "hold the country to ransom" while making generous donations to the Tory Party as they asset-strip the state.

by witchfinder Mon Oct 01, 2012 11:39 am

Ivanhoe - I agree totaly with your sentiment, if I were a selfish person then I suspect I would be a Tory supporter, I live in a big house which also houses my business, I own other property, my wife pays high band tax.

In essence I dont struggle, but I remember where I came from - brought up on a council estate, both parents worked hard and at times struggled, and I am very proud of where I came from, it has made me a better person by knowing what its like growing up in very loving family that at times had little money.

The reason why I am a Labour supporter is quite simple, because I believe it is the duty of a government to look after the people, make every effort to give people a decent life, free healthcare, good schools, reasonable income, decent standard of living, affordable homes etc etc.

And providing all this should be based on need NOT on what you can afford

by Ivanhoe Mon Oct 01, 2012 11:44 am

witchfinder wrote:Ivanhoe - I agree totaly with your sentiment, if I were a selfish person then I suspect I would be a Tory supporter, I live in a big house which also houses my business, I own other property, my wife pays high band tax.

In essence I dont struggle, but I remember where I came from - brought up on a council estate, both parents worked hard and at times struggled, and I am very proud of where I came from, it has made me a better person by knowing what its like growing up in very loving family that at times had little money.

The reason why I am a Labour supporter is quite simple, because I believe it is the duty of a government to look after the people, make every effort to give people a decent life, free healthcare, good schools, reasonable income, decent standard of living, affordable homes etc etc.

And providing all this should be based on need NOT on what you can afford

witchfinder, So why write this then,- ?

""The Labour Party when elected back to government will be the servants of "The People" not the trade unions, the Labour Party must never go back to those dark days of been unelectable, where union leaders dictate policy.
The party must implement compassionate and responsible capitalism, fairness, it must be a friend to private enterprise and public services alike""

by witchfinder Mon Oct 01, 2012 11:54 am

Ivan

I have nothing against unions, they have proved their worth many times throughout history, in my view it is the job of unions to look after and protect their members - and it is the job of elected governments to govern.

I do not accept that unions are totaly innocent in causing problems in the past, they have at times been too powerfull and too greedy, they were directly responsible for the election of Margaret Thatcher.

It was the publics anger at unions which resulted in defeat for Jim Callaghan in 1979, the majority of the British public were fed up of strikes and the Winter of Discontent.

I have always felt sorry for Jim Callaghan, he almost succeeded in turning things around, the unions ruined everything, they were demanding crazy pay rises well above inflation, they broke the prices and incomes agreement and broke the Social Contract.

by Ivanhoe Mon Oct 01, 2012 12:25 pm

witchfinder wrote:Ivan

I have nothing against unions, they have proved their worth many times throughout history, in my view it is the job of unions to look after and protect their members - and it is the job of elected governments to govern.

I do not accept that unions are totaly innocent in causing problems in the past, they have at times been too powerfull and too greedy, they were directly responsible for the election of Margaret Thatcher.

It was the publics anger at unions which resulted in defeat for Jim Callaghan in 1979, the majority of the British public were fed up of strikes and the Winter of Discontent.

I have always felt sorry for Jim Callaghan, he almost succeeded in turning things around, the unions ruined everything, they were demanding crazy pay rises well above inflation, they broke the prices and incomes agreement and broke the Social Contract.

""I do not accept that unions are totaly innocent in causing problems in the past, they have at times been too powerfull and too greedy, they were directly responsible for the election of Margaret Thatcher""".

The Unions wre not responsible for anything. Margaret Thatcher and her working class supporters are soley responsible for the demise of this country.

by witchfinder Mon Oct 01, 2012 12:47 pm

The Winter of Discontent saw Labour's performance in the opinion polls slump dramatically. They had topped most of the pre-winter opinion polls by several points, but in February 1979 at least one opinion poll was showing the Tories 20 points ahead of Labour and it appeared certain that Labour would lose the forthcoming election

[ extract taken from Wikipedia ]

If the unions at the time ( 1978-79 ) had not asked for pay increases in double digits, if they had not decided to go out on strike during that winter, and if they had understood that what they were in effect doing was opening the door to Margaret Thatcher, then I wonder if they would still have committed Labour to 18 years in the wilderness.

I am a Labour voter, but I am not one of your traditional, hard left types, and without people such as myself the Labour Party will never be elected, and some of these trade union leaders would do well to remember that fact.

by blueturando Mon Oct 01, 2012 12:56 pm

Bluey, The next Labour Government needs to build social housing on mass. Thus putting tradesmen to work. Britain needs to ditch the markets, and return to the role of the State, but this would income tax increases on the middle classes and top earners.

I totally agree on building many more social housing properties and think Ed Balls idea to use revenue from 4G licences is a great idea, but what do you mean by 'Ditching the markets'? Pensions and investments are linked to the markets, so how would you fund pension schemes? Please explain what you mean

by blueturando Mon Oct 01, 2012 12:59 pm

The party must implement compassionate and responsible capitalism, fairness, it must be a friend to private enterprise and public services alike"".

Witchfinder....All parties 'should' be like this, but unfortunately NONE are

The closest we got was Blairs '3RD Way', but even that was ruined by too much spin and stealth taxes

by blueturando Mon Oct 01, 2012 1:03 pm

The Unions wre not responsible for anything. Margaret Thatcher and her working class supporters are soley responsible for the demise of this country..

Ivanhoe......How do you think Thatcher got all these 'working class' supporters? Many of them just had enough of endless strikes, greedy wage demands and spiralling inflation rates. The unions got Thatcher elected and help keep her there. If there was an alternative reason , please enlighten me

by Ivanhoe Mon Oct 01, 2012 1:23 pm

witchfinder wrote:The Winter of Discontent saw Labour's performance in the opinion polls slump dramatically. They had topped most of the pre-winter opinion polls by several points, but in February 1979 at least one opinion poll was showing the Tories 20 points ahead of Labour and it appeared certain that Labour would lose the forthcoming election

[ extract taken from Wikipedia ]

If the unions at the time ( 1978-79 ) had not asked for pay increases in double digits, if they had not decided to go out on strike during that winter, and if they had understood that what they were in effect doing was opening the door to Margaret Thatcher, then I wonder if they would still have committed Labour to 18 years in the wilderness.

I am a Labour voter, but I am not one of your traditional, hard left types, and without people such as myself the Labour Party will never be elected, and some of these trade union leaders would do well to remember that fact.

witchfinder, I have always believed in "traditional" Labour. I full supported the strikes during the winter of discontent, because these strikers were continuing the fight for better pay and conditions that began in our Victorian past.

Sadly we British have never ever had the working class solidarity of the Greeks, the German's the French, which is why we ended up wth Thatcher, a right wing Tory whose legacy remains with us.

by **Ivan** Mon Oct 01, 2012 1:29 pm

...the unions ruined everything, they were demanding crazy pay rises well above inflation

Looking at it another way, inflation was 10% and for union leaders to accept a pay rise of 5% would have meant that they were not doing their job of trying to protect their members’ living standards. Any pay claims above inflation would have just been a bargaining counter. Yes, the strikes were badly timed, especially with an election due within a year, and they were exploited by the Tory press.

So who was to blame, the unions for looking after their members, or Callaghan for trying to control inflation through curbing wages? I’d opt for Callaghan. Inflation has many causes, not just wage increases. Thatcher managed to push inflation up from 10% to 21% in her first year in office, and that wasn’t because of generous pay rises. It had more to do with increasing VAT from 8% to 15%, along with hikes in the price of many other items, from school meals to prescriptions.

They had topped most of the pre-winter opinion polls by several points

Wikipedia is wrong on that. Opinion polls in the autumn of 1978 pointed to a ‘hung’ parliament, which is why Callaghan called off an expected general election in October of that year.

How do you think Thatcher got all these 'working class' supporters? Many of them just had enough of endless strikes, greedy wage demands and spiralling inflation rates.

Inflation was falling when Thatcher took office. She was elected because of the novelty of a first female PM, because she promised to reduce unemployment (sick joke) which was 1.4 million, because she made a few noises about immigration (saying we were being "swamped by people of an alien culture") and because she bribed working class voters by promising to sell them their council houses.

If we are to continue this discussion, maybe it ought to be moved to the history board?

by blueturando Mon Oct 01, 2012 1:44 pm

If we are to continue this discussion, maybe it ought to be moved to the history board?

Ivan....Please don't move any thread discussing Labour to History, unless you think the Labour party is history that is?

We are discussing what direction the party should take. Will Ed go back to traditional Labour values where the unions are very powerfull or will he take the party on a more 'modern' route, as Blair did.
There are aguments and supporters of both ways, so it was likely that previous historical examples would be brought up to either support or discredit posters views

by **Ivan** Mon Oct 01, 2012 2:05 pm

Fair point!

I think the party needs to go back to the spirit of 1945 when, after a previous assault on the country by fascists, the voters threw out a Tory PM and elected Labour under the leadership of a much underrated man.....

If the government was able to spend then on house building, the creation of new towns, nationalising the railways and providing us with the NHS, it ought to be able to do it again.

by Tosh Mon Oct 01, 2012 2:23 pm

The Labour party must dump its public sector union bias, in Scotland we have a lunatic Labour leader proposing Tory style cuts to free student fees, free prescriptions and free elderly care, just to safeguard the public sector jobs of their major sponsors.

The public are not stupid, they all know about the lack of efficiency and produtivity in the public sector, in a nutshell a public sector employee works half as effectively as a private employee ( nurses may be an exception).

I refuse to withdraw direct aid to the poor, sick, young and elderly because Unions want to protect their Union members from a hard days work.

The state must be efficiently run, it is not some gravy train for socialists.

Every state worker that goes into the private sector complains about their workload, welcome to the real world.

If Labour returns to " Old Labour ", they will never be in government again and may struggle to even be the opposition.

by Tosh Mon Oct 01, 2012 2:27 pm

I think the party needs to go back to the spirit of 1945

Suicide, sheer political suicide.

I refuse to pay more tax to create 2 jobs that one person could do.

by **Ivan** Mon Oct 01, 2012 2:38 pm

Every state worker that goes into the private sector complains about their workload

Tosh. That's absolute rubbish. I've known a number of teachers who've gone into jobs in the private sector (not private schools) and said just the opposite. I remember one in particular who went to work for the Nationwide Building Society and was gobsmacked that she only had to teach (or rather train) people for 12 hours a week, the rest of her time was for preparation.

If Labour returns to "Old Labour", they will never be in government again and may struggle to even be the opposition.

More rubbish. Labour's poor showing in 2010 was because their traditional supporters didn't turn out and vote. Being too similar to the other parties is why Labour will lose - if you want the Tories, you might as well have the real thing.

As to Labour "struggling to be the opposition", who do you think will be instead - a taxi-load of Liberal Democrats? The next election will probably be like 1997, when Labour would have won if Arthur Scargill had been their leader.

Your posting is just a mish-mash of nonsense and contradictions. You complain about Scottish Labour being like the Tories (agreed!), then argue that Old Labour isn't the answer either! Once again, you're way out of your depth on the politics board - you really seem much more at home with religion.

by oftenwrong Mon Oct 01, 2012 3:14 pm

The next General Election - whenever that may be - is Labour's to lose. There aren't enough Gentry to return their Tory protectors with a clear majority, and the Parliamentary Liberal-Democrat Party will be able to convene in a cupboard.

Voter apathy is the real problem, which may open the door to loony parties of all shades. Perhaps not a bad thing in itself, but unconducive to firm government. The people who do not vote out-number those who do, and set to increase, as 40% of young people polled recently say that they find Politics a turn-off.

by blueturando Mon Oct 01, 2012 4:03 pm

To be Tosh it takes a special kind of person to be a nurse or teacher and I doubt whether most of us would have the compassion and patience to do either job every well. I would never begrudge fair pay increases in these sectors, but I agree there is too much waste and it has to stop

by Tosh Mon Oct 01, 2012 4:26 pm

Your posting is just a mish-mash of nonsense and contradictions. You complain about Scottish Labour being like the Tories (agreed!), then argue that Old Labour isn't the answer either!

The middle ground is not a contradiction, it accurately reflects the poltical stance of the majority, the fact you see it as a contradicton says more about your eyesight than insight.

Once again, you're way out of your depth on the politics board - you really seem much more at home with religion..

Why, because you met a teacher who said they worked harder for the state lol ? Is this why their union fought tooth and nail to prevent teacher assessments and performance indicators ? Is this why the number of teachers sacked for incompetence is lower per capita than the number of priests sacked for pedophilia ?

My information comes from 30 years in the manufacturing sector( shipbuilding, steel, coal and MoD, my son says the same about Civil Engineering, my sister in law says the same about nursing, my sister says the same about office administration and accounts and my mum says the same about the bloody council grasscutters who wanted to charge her £26 per hour to push a freakin lawnmower.

To deny that private enterprise motivates people to work harder better than an enterprise run by unions for the benefit of its members, is certifiable.

Socialism ignores human nature, its not just lazy/greedy capitalists who want something for nothing and think only of themselves

by Tosh Mon Oct 01, 2012 4:55 pm

To be Tosh it takes a special kind of person to be a nurse or teacher and I doubt whether most of us would have the compassion and patience to do either job every well. I would never begrudge fair pay increases in these sectors, but I agree there is too much waste and it has to stop.

I too have a soft spot for NHS nurses in terms of pay and conditions but not teachers, I know many and they never complain about their lot.

by Ivanhoe Mon Oct 01, 2012 4:58 pm

Tosh wrote:The Labour party must dump its public sector union bias, in Scotland we have a lunatic Labour leader proposing Tory style cuts to free student fees, free prescriptions and free elderly care, just to safeguard the public sector jobs of their major sponsors.

The public are not stupid, they all know about the lack of efficiency and produtivity in the public sector, in a nutshell a public sector employee works half as effectively as a private employee ( nurses may be an exception).

I refuse to withdraw direct aid to the poor, sick, young and elderly because Unions want to protect their Union members from a hard days work.

The state must be efficiently run, it is not some gravy train for socialists.

Every state worker that goes into the private sector complains about their workload, welcome to the real world.

If Labour returns to " Old Labour ", they will never be in government again and may struggle to even be the opposition.

""If Labour returns to " Old Labour ", they will never be in government again and may struggle to even be the opposition"".

Tosh, After around 30 years of right wing rule in this country, Labour will win by a landslide at the next general election.

Ar you a Tory, Tosh ?

by Ivanhoe Mon Oct 01, 2012 5:02 pm

Tosh wrote:
To be Tosh it takes a special kind of person to be a nurse or teacher and I doubt whether most of us would have the compassion and patience to do either job every well. I would never begrudge fair pay increases in these sectors, but I agree there is too much waste and it has to stop.

I too have a soft spot for NHS nurses in terms of pay and conditions but not teachers, I know many and they never complain about their lot.

""I too have a soft spot for NHS nurses in terms of pay and conditions but not teachers, I know many and they never complain about their lot"".

Oh what patronizing builge this is. Of course they dont complain, they are British nurses, working to help the ill.

No wonder the nurses you know never complain, they know you wouldnt listen.

by Tosh Mon Oct 01, 2012 5:53 pm

Tosh, After around 30 years of right wing rule in this country, Labour will win by a landslide at the next general election.

I am not sure if you even understand what right wing is, 13 years of Labour spending double on health and education is not right wing in anyone's language. Labour will not win the next election, the global economy will remain stagnant until at least 2017, we are not irresponsible Greeks or Spaniards, we accept the need for austeriy and no one trusts Labour with money anymore.

Ar you a Tory, Tosh ?

Not at all, are you a Marxist Ivanovich ? Very Happy

I thought you lot had grown up or died.

by Sponsored content