I won't feel much considering I support no particular party.
It remains to be seen whether Labour will repeat the mistakes of their last opposition run. There are enough differences present to warrant the keeping of an open mind.
Who should be leader of the Labour party?
- Thread starter Naffa
- Start date
I won't feel much considering I support no particular party.
It remains to be seen whether Labour will repeat the mistakes of their last opposition run. There are enough differences present to warrant the keeping of an open mind.
They have just taken a move further to the left, more left than New Labour ... you know, the same sort of left position that lost them the last election
And this is the only reason? You aren't stupid enough to believe that, rypt.
This is the main reason, Old Labour were never electable by the majority due to being too left, only the union sheep would vote for them.
New Labour under Tony moved to the central position (now held by the ConDems), thus making them electable. Blair would have loved to go even more right but the left elements (ie Brown) within the party would not let him.
Red Ed will take the party back to the left, back out of being electable and into the unelectable by the majority - Labour will have to rely on the union and the chav votes now, no-one else will vote for them
Sorry, my fault for engaging you in discussion. I should have learned by now you offer up nothing but simplistic and childishly emotive reasoning.
As opposed to irrational denial of history?
Rypt is entirely right, if they lurch to the left, they will not get elected.
Sorry, but "an irrational denial of history" != keeping an open-mind about the outcome.
If the trade unions backed him it means they expect him to be LEFT of New Labour, which makes them harder to be elected.
There is a difference between being open-minded and wilfully ignoring historical evidence...
Er, the trade unions overwhelmingly backed Tony Blair over John Prescott and Margaret Beckett in 1994. How does that figure in your logic? Unions will vote based upon many things. Electability on a national scale will be pretty much high up there I would imagine.
In your insistence that history is doomed to repeat itself - then do you think the LibDems will split? Or will you dismiss that one because its your end of the political pitch?
Unions backed Blair after he struck a deal with Prescott and Brown if I remember correctly
I've said several times that I can see the lib dems splitting, especially if we get AV. Mind you, I've also said I can see similar possibilities in both Labour and the Tories as well with the change in the electoral system...
The real issue with the unions is the fact that their voting block doesnt' reflect how many members vote. They have 1/3rd of the vote whether 2 million people or Crow and Woodley.
Well then, you remember wrong.
I must be careful with the terminology here. When I said backed, I mean voted in by the membership as TB overwhelmingly was. The union recommendation was to back JP/MB.
So you are keeping an open mind about the split? Thats wilfully ignoring historical evidence that is!
I don't see how this is an issue unless you want it to be one. There will always be a significant number of voters in this category. Even a 10% turnout in this bloc equates to approx 350,000 votes.
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 3,084
- Location
- London
I love the fact that the guy has been in the job less than 24 hours but rabid Tory supporters are dubbing him unelectable and a major shift to the left.
Can we give him time to set his full agenda, not one that won him the Labour Leadership, before we all pre-judge and get set in this mindset of Ed as a failure.
Oh what you are all Tories, my post will go in one ear and out the other.
Try and keep open minded now kiddies.
Can we give him time to set his full agenda, not one that won him the Labour Leadership, before we all pre-judge and get set in this mindset of Ed as a failure.
Oh what you are all Tories, my post will go in one ear and out the other.
Try and keep open minded now kiddies.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
Did anyone watch the Andrew Marr show today? I only caught the final half hour or so when he was interviewing Ed Miliband - I thought he acquitted himself reasonably well in not giving away too much in terms of specifics yet considering he's only been Leader of the Opposition less than a day, however it's not going to be too long before he does need to nail his colours to the mast so to speak.
Why are labour apologists so aggressive towards anyone who doesn't share their views? This is the third or fourth post you've made ad homming those who don't share your view of the labour party...