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

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."

bambu wrote:

oftenwrong wrote:"Abbos" is racist."

Comical, emanating from an obvious racist, but actually it's satire, bambu.


sat·ire [sat-ahyuhr] noun
The use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc.

Who were the 7/7 bombers, and from where did they spring?

Check out the above at the Telegraph.

tlttf wrote:Is there a difference between the Tories and the Labour Party. Both claim to work for the people, both claim to help the those that strive to improve themselves and both show utter contempt for anybody earning under £45,000 pa.


Ms Abbott's chip-bashing, booze-demonising start to 2013 sums up what her beloved Labour has become – the party of anti-masses nagging. Labour looks upon its old support base, the working classes, as a festering blob of drunken, junk-scoffing drones who don't know what's good for them. Once, Labour claimed to represent and respect the labouring classes (the clue was in the name); now it has nothing but contempt for those classes, spending the past two decades bombarding them with parenting lessons.

Check out the above at the Telegraph. Before screaming "typical tory paper" check out exactly who and what Abbot believes in?

Tosh wrote:

£200 per week is a generous income, and allows saving for emergencies only in the situation of a single person living in shared accommodation (usually with parents) and is not enough money to maintain a home, feed and clothe yourself and transport yourself to and from work, and is certainly not enough to feed and maintain a family.

I have demonstrated that £200 per week is enough for a 2+2 family, and it is certainly enough to stave off starvation, which was my main point.

oftenwrong wrote:How difficult it seems to be, to stick to the topic heading. Where should the Labour Party position itself?

In a couple of years, the British electorate, not all of whom bother to vote, will be deliberating between Labour, Tory, Lib-Dem and UKIP in circumstances which we cannot yet know. But the majority of those who DO make the effort to vote will be mainly concerned with their own personal circumstances, i.e. according to the feel-good factor.

Will it be enough for the Labour Party to merely be the NOT the Coalition Party?

Redflag wrote:
I do not think it will be enough, the time starts now for the Labour party to set out its direction for the future and to put a fire underneath those that do not vote.

Ivanhoe wrote:Oldboy, I could not agree more with what you say.

oftenwrong wrote:Like it or not, the only reason for the change of Labour Party fortunes in the 1997 election was that BLAIR had forced through a complete break with the past. Had the Party continued with its Michael Foot style of manifesto, dubbed The Longest suicide note in political history, there would have been no interruption to a continuous Tory reign from 1979 right through to the present.

Anyone looking constantly over their shoulder is likely to stumble.

boatlady wrote:I have been wondering about joining the Labour party - never been an active memvber of a political party before - are there any active mebers on here, and what would you say?

boatlady wrote:Redflag
Thanks so much for your detailed reply. I really think it has to be one of my New Year resolutions.
I've always in the past thought the only way to change the world is one kind act at a time, but the present gov't are committing so many outrages that maybe it's time to stand up and be counted.
I'm really scared, come next election, that the opposition vote will be split, resulting in a chance for the present government to have another term in office - that would I think get us right back to Victorian England, which is no place I ever want to live.

boatlady wrote:I have been wondering about joining the Labour party - never been an active memvber of a political party before - are there any active mebers on here, and what would you say?

boatlady wrote:Thanks, everybody, for your messages of support - I did the online joining thing tonight - just waiting now to see what happens next.

boatlady wrote:Thanks, everybody, for your messages of support - I did the online joining thing tonight - just waiting now to see what happens next.

tlttf wrote:If you want to know how labour are running things look no further than the Wales. The labour controlled semi-government is making the greatest cuts to the n.h.s. than anywhere else. can't think why if it's such a bad idea?

tlttf wrote:Not in the slightest Red, Wales gets as much money per capita as England does, though it is less than Scotland.

tlttf wrote:Thanks to every-bodies government of previous years, there needs to be a responsible approach to government interference, with liberty comes responsibility and the less interference by government the better. In a perfect world Red the government would subsidise everything (socialism). In the real world it's the working person that has to carry the bill. If Wales can't survive on the subsidy they're given, though it is more than the English receive then saving money where possible is the right way forward. Simply pointing out that it is labour controlled and asking what would happen if Labour gained control of the whole of the UK, would they then have to ask harsh questions of where to cut or would (as previously) simply throw money at the problem?