Where should the Labour Party position itself? (Part 2)

by **Ivan** Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:33 am

First topic message reminder :

Just to prove what a liar I am, always “making things up as I go along”, I’ll add three more sources to the discussion, but no doubt that won’t convince the pig-headed amongst us:-

“The Beveridge Report proposed an allowance of eight shillings per week for all children (apart from for a family's first child if one parent was working), which graduated according to age. It was to be non-contributory and funded by general taxation. After some debate, the Family Allowances Bill was enacted in June 1945. The act provided for a flat rate payment funded directly from taxation. The recommended nine shillings a week was reduced to five shillings, and family allowance became a subsidy, rather than a subsistence payment as Beveridge had envisaged.”

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/cabinetpapers/themes/beveridge-report-child-benefit.htm

“Known as the Family Allowance, the 5 shillings a week payment was given to parents only for their second AND subsequent children, thus helping shore up the depleted population by encouraging more births. It continued through the post-war boom but was restructured when the economy turned down again, being reinvented as Child Benefit in the second half of the 1970s. The new payments were tax free and first-time mothers also became eligible.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/8041636/Child-Benefit-history.html

“In the UK, child benefit is administered by Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (HMRC). The system was first implemented in August 1946 as ‘family allowances’ under the Family Allowances Act 1945, at a rate of 5s (= £0.25) per week per child in a family, except for the eldest. This was raised from September 1952, by the Family Allowances and National Insurance Act 1952, to 8s (= £0.40), and from October 1956, by the Family Allowances Act and National Insurance Act 1956, to 8s for the second child with 10s (= £0.50) for the third and subsequent children.

It was modified in 1977, with the payments being termed ‘child benefit’ and given for the eldest child as well as the younger ones; by 1979 it was worth £4 per child per week. In 1991, the system was further altered, with a higher payment now given for the first child than for their younger siblings.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_benefit

by blueturando Thu Aug 15, 2013 3:10 pm

Deleted. A further six lines copied from the same source as the previous 37 - and without any acknowledgement.
Ivan.

by oftenwrong Thu Aug 15, 2013 3:15 pm

Downfall of civilisation, you say?

That could be serious. Where are we going to buy our petrol?

by blueturando Thu Aug 15, 2013 3:26 pm

:We will have to use Bikes OW....Hopefully not Boris bikes though Smile

by blueturando Thu Aug 15, 2013 3:28 pm

Ivans old message has jumped to this page...To see what I am on about read sickchips post on page 5

by **moonbeam** Thu Aug 15, 2013 4:20 pm

blueturando wrote:Ivans old message has jumped to this page...To see what I am on about read sickchips post on page 5

blueturando, that is intentional. Every thread now has the original post at the top of each page, in order to remind us of what the topic is. Smile

by witchfinder Fri Aug 16, 2013 12:13 am

If I were to go into a betting shop tomorrow I would still put money on a Labour victory at the next general election, mainly because the poll of polls suggests a Labour victory if there were to be an election tomorrow, with a majority of around 84.

However, I do see that there is a bit of a problem with Ed Miliband being leader, and I have to admit that if David Miliband had been elected leader, then the gap in the polls would be much wider than it currently is.

I have to hope that the polls will stay as they are, and as they have been for at least 18 months, and I have to hope that the leadership of the Labour Party have got a few things up their sleeve, and that the best is yet to come.

I cannot see a sudden and remarkable turn around in economic fortunes to help the coalition, there is absolutely no sign of a surge in growth to dizzy heights of what they were prior to the recession, and the cuts and the austerity are here to stay until well after the election.

Keep calm and sit tight and wait - the signs are that there will be a Labour victory.

by boatlady Fri Aug 16, 2013 10:06 am

How nice to hear a positive note among all the gloom and doom.
I confess the leadership election took place before I started noticing politics in more than a casual way, so I'm not sure about the differences - maybe I need to study a bit f very recent history.

by oftenwrong Fri Aug 16, 2013 11:23 am

Leadership qualities are of considerable importance, but more than one parliamentary consituency has the reputation for always electing the same colour rosette at every election.

President Clinton was right to say, "It's the Economy, stupid!" because people will usually vote in accordance with their Feel-good factor.

In witchfinder's words, above, "I cannot see a sudden and remarkable turn around in economic fortunes to help the coalition."

by witchfinder Fri Aug 16, 2013 1:03 pm

Many of the leadership qualities required today are sadly very much cosmetic and hollywood style, poor old Gordon Brown did not stand a chance, he is an extremely sincere and genuine person with strong convictions.

But a person with a strong conviction and honesty is no longer good enough, its the ability to speak with forked tounge and sound honest, and your appearence which matters more, and thats a great pitty.

by Penderyn Fri Aug 16, 2013 1:16 pm

witchfinder wrote:Many of the leadership qualities required today are sadly very much cosmetic and hollywood style, poor old Gordon Brown did not stand a chance, he is an extremely sincere and genuine person with strong convictions.

But a person with a strong conviction and honesty is no longer good enough, its the ability to speak with forked tounge and sound honest, and your appearence which matters more, and thats a great pitty.

He could hardly have been brought up in his world without being taught that who sups with the Devil must use a long spoon. He is a warning to us all not to waste time with careerist scum. We just have to start again. Pity, but there it is!

by **Ivan** Fri Aug 16, 2013 4:32 pm

boatlady wrote:-
How nice to hear a positive note among all the gloom and doom.

Why the odds are still on a Labour victory in 2015

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/07/why-odds-are-still-labour-victory-2015

by Redflag Sat Aug 17, 2013 9:27 pm

That was nice to read Ivan but you've got to admit Ed and the Labour MPs have got to get their fingers out and start to give their voters and the ones that are unsure who they will vote for in the 2015 general election something better than Cameron & Clegg are serving up at the moment of LIES LIES SPIN plus making it up as they go along. I want to see the Labour party get a majority in 2015, that is the only way the UK will have a FAIR GOV'T FOR ALL not just for the chosen few at the top of the "MONEY TREE".

by WarwickH Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:18 pm

By the next election my hope is enough voters will have had enough of the ConDem government and go for Labour. Miliband will hope his "austerity-lite" agenda will strike a balance between giving hope to those most savaged, while not being too radical to alarm the Right. So, we might have a Labour government somewhere to the Right of Blair- when the poorest sections of the electorate desperately need a radical move to the Left- to undo some of the damage done by Cameron.
If there's no obvious differences between the three centre parties apart from some cosmetic tweaking you have to ask "What's Labour for?" I can't bear to think of the next decades swinging between centrist parties, with no discernible differences for those who feel the brunt of unjust classist policies.
Whether we get people involved, educated and organised within Labour itself or through the Unions and wider, unaffiliated groups- hopefully both, we're going to have to move soon. We've been sleep-walking into an erosion of our civil liberties and our ability to fight back, and apparently, even our ability to recognise it. Capitalism is failing and having recognised that, it's digging in, preparing for the eventual reaction- from us.

by oftenwrong Wed Aug 21, 2013 11:15 pm

Where Should the Labour Party Position Itself?

Somewhere visible and audible might be a start.

by Redflag Wed Aug 21, 2013 11:28 pm

WarwickH wrote:By the next election my hope is enough voters will have had enough of the ConDem government and go for Labour. Miliband will hope his "austerity-lite" agenda will strike a balance between giving hope to those most savaged, while not being too radical to alarm the Right. So, we might have a Labour government somewhere to the Right of Blair- when the poorest sections of the electorate desperately need a radical move to the Left- to undo some of the damage done by Cameron.
If there's no obvious differences between the three centre parties apart from some cosmetic tweaking you have to ask "What's Labour for?" I can't bear to think of the next decades swinging between centrist parties, with no discernible differences for those who feel the brunt of unjust classist policies.
Whether we get people involved, educated and organised within Labour itself or through the Unions and wider, unaffiliated groups- hopefully both, we're going to have to move soon. We've been sleep-walking into an erosion of our civil liberties and our ability to fight back, and apparently, even our ability to recognise it. Capitalism is failing and having recognised that, it's digging in, preparing for the eventual reaction- from us.

Well said WarwickH its about time somebody told it like it is, if Labour got its finger out and moved a bit to the left of centre that would satisfy the majority of the voters of the UK.

by James Gibson Wed Sep 11, 2013 5:28 pm

Questions are being asked as to how the Labour Party plans to fund itself after leading trade union, GMB, announced it is going to cut donations to the party from £1.2m to just £150,000. The Labour Party faces a gap in its funding and fundamental questions are now being asked in regards to the party’s relationship with trade unions. The GMB’s plans were announced in response to Ed Miliband’s party reforms to enforce an opt-in rule for all union members. Meaning that members of Labour-affiliated unions will now be given the choice as to whether or not they want to contribute towards the party, instead of those choices being solely down to union executives. The reforms will mean that Labour faces a huge shortfall in funding which is vital for central party operations such as campaigning and advertising. With the general election in only two years, Labour has a limited time frame to secure its funding and ensure that the party’s electoral resources are sufficient for the 2015 campaigns. But what reforms are necessary to bridge the gap and will these reforms strain the Labour Party’s historic relationship with the working people?

Unions support the Labour Party because of their role in fighting for the rights of ordinary working people. In conflicts between workers and businesses, unions present the case of the workers – using tools such as strike action if necessary. When these conflicts between businesses and employees are much wider, involving public policy, the unions’ traditional tools aren’t adequate anymore. This, put very simply, is the role of the Labour movement in British politics. Fighting for the case of working people on a political level, and this is why the unions have always been supporters and affiliates of the LP. However, reforms within the Labour Party have muddied the waters and this vital relationship between Labour and the trade unions is being threatened.

There are factions within Labour that believe that the party is too dependent on union power and must find alternative funding – what ‘alternative’ means is open to interpretation. There is growing fear in the left-wing of the party that Ed Miliband will look towards to businesses to fill its funding gap, although if that were the case – serious questions would have to be asked about the democratic socialist principals of the party. On the ground floor of Labour, the vast majority of people would oppose such a move. The party, in my opinion, can’t adopt a Conservative-style funding system without alienating its working class core – in a time where membership numbers are lower than ever. The appeal of the Labour Party, at least for me, has always been its collective attitude to dealing with issues – I’m sure this is true for many of us. The long-term electoral strategy of the Labour Party will, I think, involve a return to mass-membership.

Labour’s victories in the past have been down to collective wants and needs. After WWII, people were suffering and as a result – collectively campaigned under Labour and Clement Attlee to bring about our NHS and welfare state. Again, in 2013 – people are suffering. I’ve used this statistic a lot in this blog, but it’s worth repeating, one food bank is opening every week here in Britain. Child poverty is rising and the gap between rich and poor is growing. People oppose the privatization of the NHS and Royal Mail. These are left-wing policies that almost everybody in the UK is supportive of – Labour needs to embrace the will of the people and incorporate this collective will within its electoral strategy once again.

The Labour movement began to target a host of issues affecting ordinary people. In 2013, these issues have never been more relevant.

---

This article has been cross-posted from the Critical Proletariat. http://www.criticalproletariat.com

by **Ivan** Sat Nov 16, 2013 4:01 pm

What Robert Webb of ‘Peep Show’ said in an open letter to Russell Brand:-

“You’re wilfully talking through your arse about something very important. When you end a piece about politics with the injunction 'I will never vote and I don’t think you should either', then you’re actively telling a lot of people that engagement with our democracy is a bad idea. That just gives politicians the green light to neglect the concerns of young people because they’ve been relieved of the responsibility of courting their vote.

The last Labour government didn’t do enough and bitterly disappointed many voters. But, at the risk of losing your attention, on the whole they helped. Opening Sure Start centres, introducing and raising the minimum wage, making museums free, guaranteeing nursery places, blah blah blah: nobody is going to write a folk song about this stuff …..but these policies among many others changed the real lives of millions of real people for the better.

This is exactly what the present coalition is in the business of tearing to pieces. They are not interested in helping unlucky people – they want to scapegoat and punish them. You specifically object to George Osborne’s challenge to the EU’s proposed cap on bankers’ bonuses. Labour simply wouldn’t be doing that right now. They are not all the same. 'They’re all the same' is what reactionaries love to hear. It leaves the status quo serenely untroubled, it cedes the floor to the easy answers of UKIP and ‘The Daily Mail’. No, if you want to be a nuisance to the people whom you most detest in public life, vote. And vote Labour.”

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/10/robert-webb-re-joins-labour-protest-russell-brand

by oftenwrong Sat Nov 16, 2013 5:19 pm

We complain rightly about Politicians who appear to have little knowledge of the "REAL WORLD" outside of the Westminster bubble, but what a mess real people can make of political pronouncements.

by Penderyn Sat Nov 16, 2013 5:29 pm

oftenwrong wrote:We complain rightly about Politicians who appear to have little knowledge of the "REAL WORLD" outside of the Westminster bubble, but what a mess real people can make of political pronouncements.

That is the result of destroying party democracy. The 'politicians' never have to meet real people, and the people never have to accept responsibility for their views.

by Redflag Sat Nov 16, 2013 5:59 pm

They do have to meet real people Penderyn when they come looking for your vote every general election some come with just damned lies others really think they can do better than the incumbent.:yeahthat:

by tlttf Thu Nov 21, 2013 6:57 am

Where should the labour party position itself. Well apparently not on the moral high ground (makes me smile).

It’s no coincidence the MPs found guilty of fiddling are all Labour
The party may take the moral high ground, but lying and cheating are deep in its DNA
A Labour-supporting Methodist minister, Paul Flowers was deemed by definition to be the right man to chair the Co-op Bank, even if he knew nothing about banking
A Labour-supporting Methodist minister, Paul Flowers was deemed by definition to be the right man to chair the Co-op Bank, even if he knew nothing about banking Photo: PA

By Peter Oborne

The book can at last be closed on The Daily Telegraph investigation into the MPs’ expenses scandal. More than 300 Members of Parliament have paid back wrongly claimed expenses. Several of the worst offenders have stood down from Parliament. Now that the former minister Denis MacShane has at last pleaded guilty to fraud, no further prosecutions are planned, and all criminal investigation is reported to have ceased.

But one puzzling question remains. Why is it that only Labour MPs have been found guilty of expenses fraud as a result of the Telegraph revelations?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/10462871/Its-no-coincidence-the-MPs-found-guilty-of-fiddling-are-all-Labour.html

by boatlady Thu Nov 21, 2013 7:55 am

Lower even than your usual standard of biased and ignorant sources tlttf - fortunately anyone who actually reads this (and the comments) may get a more balanced picture.

by **Ivan** Thu Nov 21, 2013 9:20 am

It’s no coincidence the MPs found guilty of fiddling are ALL Labour

tlttf. That must be the one of the biggest lies you've ever posted on this forum, and we have quite a few from which to choose. Lord Taylor and Lord Hanningfield are Labour MPs, are they?? Why don't you try telling us how honest and upright ALL Tory MPs are, or is this just standard trolling designed to provoke a reaction? Do you seriously expect anyone to believe a word that you say?

Why do you repeat yourself like this?

A Labour-supporting Methodist minister, Paul Flowers was deemed by definition to be the right man to chair the Co-op Bank, even if he knew nothing about banking
A Labour-supporting Methodist minister, Paul Flowers was deemed by definition to be the right man to chair the Co-op Bank, even if he knew nothing about banking

Are you so useless, lazy and incompetent that you don't even bother to look at the tripe that you're posting? Rolling Eyes

Your pathetic smear has no relevance to the "positioning of the Labour Party" and would have been deleted if it hadn't already been answered by a staff member.

by Redflag Thu Nov 21, 2013 10:12 am

tlttf wrote:Where should the labour party position itself. Well apparently not on the moral high ground (makes me smile).
It’s no coincidence the MPs found guilty of fiddling are all Labour
The party may take the moral high ground, but lying and cheating are deep in its DNA

Typical Tory LYING BACKSTUD you seem to forget about the DUCK HOUSE & MOAT CLEANING or most recently Tory MP charging the tax payer for his electricity to keep him from paying to keep his horses warm, which is a private business KETTLE & POT come to mind tittf.

You just like Cameron need your mouth washed out with CARBOLIC SOAP and then maybe you could make the effort to tell the "TRUTH WHOLE TRUTH & NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH":yeahthat:

by oftenwrong Thu Nov 21, 2013 12:14 pm

The more rattled that the Tories get as the next General Election date draws closer, the more hysterical will become their attacks on Labour.

It goes with the territory.

by Dan Fante Thu Nov 21, 2013 2:13 pm

tlttf wrote:-
It’s no coincidence the MPs found guilty of fiddling are all Labour
The party may take the moral high ground, but lying and cheating are deep in its DNA
A Labour-supporting Methodist minister, Paul Flowers was deemed by definition to be the right man to chair the Co-op Bank, even if he knew nothing about banking
A Labour-supporting Methodist minister, Paul Flowers was deemed by definition to be the right man to chair the Co-op Bank, even if he knew nothing about banking Photo: PA

By Peter Oborne

Here's a list of banks that had to be rescued when the shit hit near the end of the previous decade:

Abbey
Barclays plc
Clydesdale Bank
HBOS
HSBC / HSBC Group
Lloyds TSB
Nationwide Building Society
Royal Bank of Scotland / Royal Bank of Scotland Group
Standard Chartered Bank

Do you think they were all run by Labour supporters at that time?

by **Ivan** Thu Nov 21, 2013 5:17 pm

tlttf wrote:-
makes me smile

Good for you. This sentence in Peter Oborne’s article nearly had me rolling on the floor with laughter:-

Conservatives stress narrow objectives such as telling the truth, caring for one’s neighbour, and good manners.

Yes, that sounds just like Cameron, Osborne and Duncan Smith, doesn’t it?
lol!

You’ve claimed previously that you’re “able to think for yourself”, though you’ve never shown any evidence of being able to do so. Clumsily copy/pasting any grubby little snippet you can find to try to discredit Labour is about your limit. The source doesn’t matter to you, whether it be from the dishonest and disreputable Daily Mail’ or right-wing extremists like Hitchens, Redwood and now Oborne. We lost one potential member because she said that reading some of your squalid posts made her feel sick.

It’s a shame that Oborne’s lies didn’t make you think, or question the validity of what he’d posted, or even read some of the comments underneath his contemptible piece. After all, you’ve told us before that you have “no prejudices, simply a need for the full story”. In that case, why didn’t you mention the Tory peers who have been in jail? Aren’t you aware that lords are members of one of the Houses of Parliament? Have you conveniently forgotten the dozens of Tory MPs – some of whom are currently in the government - who fiddled their expenses? As such a great ‘thinker’ (I expect your friends, if you have any, nickname you Wittgenstein or Descartes), why do you take Oborne’s claptrap at face value?

Paul Flowers was deemed by definition to be the right man to chair the Co-op Bank, even if he knew nothing about banking

And George Osborne is Chancellor, when he knows nothing about economics. Perhaps we should have an inquiry into how he got that job. Why can’t we have an inquiry into how reckless financiers and a corrupt economic system almost crashed the entire global economy? How about an inquiry into how Coulson got exempted from vetting for access to highest security levels in government?

Do you know anything about the Co-op? Silly question, of course you don’t. The Co-op is owned by its members, not by shareholders. That means any member can stand for election to his or her local area committee and can be elected to a regional committee. They can be elected to the group board and they can even be elected to the Co-op Bank and become its chairperson. The chair isn’t appointed by Ed Miliband, but that won’t worry the dirty tricks specialist Crosby, who is no doubt behind this latest attempt to smear him. First we had your favorite newspaper’s attack on him through his dead father, a man who did more for the UK in the war than any Nazi-sympathising press barons, and now we have this nonsense. It just shows how desperate the Tories are getting as May 2015 approaches.

You posted this recently:-

Simply trying to show a bit of balance to the story

So where’s the balance today? Why haven’t you posted this response from Chris Leslie, the shadow chief secretary?

“Osborne and his ministers actively encouraged the Co-op bank’s failed bid for 632 Lloyd’s branches, with reports of 30 ministerial meetings to smooth the way for this deal. What due diligence was done by the Chancellor and the Treasury into the state of the Co-op Bank and its leadership? And why did the Chancellor argue in Brussels for the Co-op Bank to be spared from tougher rules? If David Cameron wants a proper inquiry into what went wrong at the Co-op Bank, then George Osborne will have to answer all these questions.”

What a pity that you can’t occasionally construct your own argument, instead of only ever slapping your vile propaganda under our noses. Oh, I forgot, you’ve made it clear twice that you don’t know what ‘argument’ means in this context – the construction of a statement containing a set of reasons, backed by evidence, to support an idea or theory. Don't let it worry you, but almost every time you open your trap you show people just how ignorant you are. And that makes me smile. Very Happy

by Redflag Fri Nov 22, 2013 12:52 am

oftenwrong wrote:The more rattled that the Tories get as the next General Election date draws closer, the more hysterical will become their attacks on Labour.

It goes with the territory.

As usual OW your spot on, its the UK public that are rattling the Tory cage and of course it will get worse the nearer we get to the next general election :yeahthat:

by Bellatori Fri Nov 22, 2013 3:34 pm

Dan Fante wrote:...Here's a list of banks that had to be rescued when the shit hit near the end of the previous decade:

Abbey
Barclays plc
Clydesdale Bank
HBOS
HSBC / HSBC Group
Lloyds TSB
Nationwide Building Society
Royal Bank of Scotland / Royal Bank of Scotland Group
Standard Chartered Bank

Do you think they were all run by Labour supporters at that time?

Absolutely agree with you.

The Labour party are pointing out quite correctly that there was a failure of supervision over the appointment of Flowers and the running of the Coop which should have been obvious to the supervising authority and therefore to the BoE and therefore to the treasury all through the much heralded and lauded sell off of 600 Lloyd's branches which the current government were ecstatic about. Today (those right wing fascist running dogs) reinforced this point at some length this morning and made it clear that there were letters from senior people within these organisations raising the issue.. Clearly the renamed FSA has a lot to answer for as does the previous governor of the BoE.

Of course this is clearly different from the collapse of all those banks you mention. Obviously there was good supervision all the way up and the actuality came as a total surprise to all levels of supervisory authorities.

by **Phil Hornby** Fri Nov 22, 2013 3:45 pm

For all the good it is, the Labour Party might as well prepare for a place in the political shadows until at least 2020. It is not an effective Opposition and provides just too big a target for the many media jackals which are all too ready to attack it.

It is hung out to dry very unfairly by the lies and distortions which beset it from the Press, but it has so few redeeming features with which to counter such strategies.

Were it as good as the Tories in the Smear Stakes , Miliband may have had a chance but, as it stands, it is another dose of Cameron coming our way in 2015...

by Redflag Fri Nov 22, 2013 4:11 pm

Do you really think people are going to be STUPID enough to vote Tory after what they have done to them over the past 5years, with nothing else to look forward to but more Austerity and another £10 Billion off the Welfare bill that Osborne wants so OAPS watch who you vote for.:yeahthat:

by **Phil Hornby** Fri Nov 22, 2013 4:48 pm

" Do you really think people are going to be STUPID enough to vote Tory after what they have done to them over the past 5years...!"

In a word : 'Yep'...

by oftenwrong Fri Nov 22, 2013 5:42 pm

Phil Hornby wrote:For all the good it is, the Labour Party might as well prepare for a place in the political shadows until at least 2020. It is not an effective Opposition and provides just too big a target for the many media jackals which are all too ready to attack it.

It is hung out to dry very unfairly by the lies and distortions which beset it from the Press, but it has so few redeeming features with which to counter such strategies.

Were it as good as the Tories in the Smear Stakes , Miliband may have had a chance but, as it stands, it is another dose of Cameron coming our way in 2015...

Money talks. The moneyed class would not remain so for long if they embraced sound socialist principles, so the Labour Party and its adherents will always be marginalised in a Capitalist economy.

by Bellatori Fri Nov 22, 2013 7:04 pm

Redflag wrote:
Do you really think people are going to be STUPID enough to vote Tory after what they have done to them over the past 5years,...

Robert Heinlein had a couple of sayings that illustrate my point exactly

"Reason is poor propaganda when opposed by the yammering, unceasing lies of shrewd and evil and self-serving men"

"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity."

by oftenwrong Fri Nov 22, 2013 7:21 pm

Robert A Heinlein might not present an obvious role-model for such as our loyal friend Redflag. The American author is noted for having supported Barry Goldwater in his (notably unsuccessful) 1964 Presidential campaign against LBJ.
Heinlein later contributed to the Reagan "Star Wars" speech of Spring 1983.

by **Ivan** Fri Nov 22, 2013 9:25 pm

Phil Hornby. As Captain Mainwaring would have said: “Wilson, I’ll not have any of that defeatist talk here”. What a Face

Yes, I admit to being fearful of what dirty, filthy tricks Cameron and Lynton Crosby will come up with to dupe the masses, who aren’t particularly interested in politics. It’s bad enough already, and we’re still nearly eighteen months away from the election, unless of course the Liberal Democrats decide to pull the plug – fat chance of that. It’s quite obvious that Cameron and the rest of his spivs, having sold off most of the state to unaccountable corporations, aren’t resigned to defeat in 2015 and will try every trick in the book to keep themselves in power.

However, most of the British public must surely notice that they’re worse off now than in 2010. Yes, the Tories will scream “it’s all Labour’s fault”, and Labour wasted far too much time in choosing a new leader, which should have been sorted within a month. While Labour was being introspective, the Tories, with help from pathetic assholes like Danny Alexander, were embedding in the national psyche that the global crisis of capitalism was all down to Gordon Brown.

Hindsight is a wonderful gift, and without doubt there wasn’t enough regulation of the banks prior to the global crash. I can just imagine what the Tories – like Redwood (the hero of one moron on this forum) and Cameron - would have had to say about more regulation at the time, when they thought there was too much of it already! No doubt that fact has been deleted from Tory websites by now.

However, getting back to Captain Mainwaring (and now you know what I watch on a Saturday evening), can you tell me why you think the Tories will win in 2015? They haven’t managed to win an election outright since 1992 (and that was only with the usual pack of lies about “cutting taxes year on year”), and they won only 36.1% of the votes in 2010. If they are to win outright, who on earth is going to vote for them next time who didn’t vote for them last time? Students? 720,000 public sector workers who’ve lost their jobs? Those who thought the NHS was safe from any re-organisations? Disabled people who’ve had their benefits reduced and been forced to move because of the bedroom tax? Parents who were relying on Sure Start centres, which Cameron promised not to close?

Almost every weekend, Labour Party members and supporters have been taking part in the 'Labour doorstep' campaign, quietly talking to voters at their own front doors. If the Tories win in 2015, they will be defying history. The last time that a Tory government increased its share of the vote from the previous election was in 1955. The next election will also be unique in one respect – that if you want to get rid of the government of the day, there’s no point in voting for the Liberal Democrats. Only one party can confine this evil regime to the dustbin of history, where it belongs, and that’s the Labour Party.

by Bellatori Fri Nov 22, 2013 10:03 pm

oftenwrong wrote:Robert A Heinlein might not present an obvious role-model for such as our loyal friend Redflag. The American author is noted for having supported Barry Goldwater in his (notably unsuccessful) 1964 Presidential campaign against LBJ.
Heinlein later contributed to the Reagan "Star Wars" speech of Spring 1983.

Hmmm... and for a few other reasons I can think of.... however he was rather good at the pithy aphorism. He came up with TANSTAAFL but the one my wife really likes is

“Once a month, some women act like men act all the time.”

by **Phil Hornby** Sat Nov 23, 2013 7:41 pm

Ivan asks : "...can you tell me why you think the Tories will win in 2015?"

I never bother with all that data stuff , of course - nor do I trouble myself with any inconvenient facts , relying solely on a gut instinct which rarely lets me down.

I do not necessarily believe that Cameron will enjoy a massive win , but the huge propaganda exercise which is already underway against both Labour and the Lib-Dumbs will persuade sufficient numbers to ensure he can remain in office at least as head of yet another coalition ( maybe even an unwilling one).

Miliband cannot win a victory when faced with the bile of a Tory Press and their daily hounding of him. Additionally, he is unconvincing individually - as are many of his potential Cabinet.

If I am wrong, I shall stand outside Pease Pottage Conservative Club on a windy day, wearing a Che Guevara T-Shirt and a skimpy kilt...

by bobby Sat Nov 23, 2013 9:31 pm

Phil, I agree with you totally, I have been saying for quite some time that Ed Miliband and the rest of his team should have started their election campaign well over a year ago. If anyone thinks they can overcome 4 years or thereabouts of constant attacks both political and personal, they seriously need a rethink. Herr Cameron and his Rhumba of rattlesnakes along with his tame media dogs have had a free hand in their attacks. It is only very recently that Ed Miliband has started to fight back and in my opinion it is four years too late. He should have started his attack both political and personal the moment he took over the opposition front bench. As soon as Herr Cameron took office it was plainly obvious at to just what a lying cheating stronzo he is, and it was Ed's job to show the public just who they had allowed to occupy 10 Downing Street. I have watched interview after interview with Ed Miliband and many other Labour politicians, yet with the exception of 1 or 2, nothing is ever said about Tory dishonesty. I know they have to be careful what they say in the House of Commons do to the stupidity of Parliamentary privileges, but as soon as they are outside the HOC they are as free as we to say what they want so long as its legal. If a Tory openly lies as have almost the entire Government front bench, and they are openly called a liar it does not become libellous unless the accusation can be proven false, as nearly every Tory lie has been televised I cant see how they can then call foul, yet they did and do get away with it on a daily basis. The only place Herr Cameron is regularly beaten is on Prime Ministers Question Time, but how many are able to watch that at mid-day on a Wednesday. Ed needs to pull his finger out or as you day phil, get beaten at the next GE.

by **Phil Hornby** Sat Nov 23, 2013 9:41 pm

I am not sure the Party I support actually exists, Bobby! Shocked

by Bellatori Sat Nov 23, 2013 10:10 pm

Bobby, Phil... I think you are both being overly pessimistic. I do play with numbers the whole time and this is entirely my guess.

In a straight fight between the three main parties - let us assume that the conservatives do well. They will get 36% of the vote. Labour does similarly and gets 36% of the vote and the LibDems have an absolute miracle and get 22% then we get another ConLib parliament. Do we really think this will happen? UKIP may well get no seats but 15% of the vote. Where will this come from? Mainly the Conservatives. LibDems will probably suffer a total collapse but say 10% drop - they stand at about 12% now I think. Where will these votes go? Conservatives? Hardly? UKIP? Do you think so? Even if they ALL abstain it means Labour pick up more seats. The irony is that Cameron reneged on support for a new electoral system as the Lib Dems see it. They got a vote but no support which torpedoed it from the start. The response was that they in turn refused to support the boundary changes which would have helped the Tories. on an even split Tory/Labour then Labour gets more seats.

All Miliband has to do is avoid alienating his supporters and he should win comfortably. I am reckoning on a 40->80 Labour majority.

By the way, Phil, I just checked in my wardrobe. I still have my Che t-shirt from student days and also a kilt. I know that misery loves company but in my case it will be to come and gloat Very Happy

by Sponsored content