Poll: Should Labour turn left or right?

[Frightful Boar]

They should turn away from Socialism, that's for sure. Even the poorest slob in the UK has more than enough unless they are seriously mismanaging their situation.

Labour will never get back in, people are wising up.

 

[Woden]

Labour need to go back towards the left.

But they also need to drop the career politicians. They need candidates that have actually done some labour.

 

[Tummy]

Andy Burnham hopefully takes over leadership .

 

[{T5K}TT]

I reject the premise of the question, Labour didn't lose on Thursday because they were too left wing - policies were pretty much irrelevant for this election (no-one can possibly believe the Tory manifesto), imo they ultimately lost because of three reasons:

1) Voters thought David Cameron would make a better leader of the country than Ed Miliband.
2) People actually believed that Labour overspending and not the global financial crisis caused the UK's debt and deficit problem. Labour should have been much more vocal about defending their economic record.
3) Voters thought Labour would do a deal with the SNP despite Ed ruling it out during the leader's debate.

The Tory propaganda machine was the difference here - you have the Sun, the Telegraph and the Daily Mail just repeating the same big lies again and again and people believe it. I dunno what the solution is tbh - do a deal with Murdoch like Tony Blair did I guess. Not a perfect solution but at least Murdoch didn't have it all his own way after Blair shagged his wife

You are only correct with point 1.)

On 2.) Labour's economic policy IN THE RUN UP TO THE 2008 CRISIS was a record of gratuitous overspending. In 1997 Labour inherited a debt of around £300bn, and in 2008, before the financial crisis, that had grown to over £500bn. Why? Anyone with any sense knows that a government should run a surplus during good times (save for a rainy day) and a deficit during hard times (to help stabilize the economy). If you cannot see this then your head is in the sand. Labour's policy of overspending in the run up to the financial crisis meant that the UK economy was in a much worse position to offset the impact of the crash. This is precisely Labour's crime.

On 3.) the English hardly needed the Tories to point out that a Labour/SNP love-in was likely. That was obvious from 1,000,000 miles away.

It's daft and insulting to quote "The Tory propaganda machine" and blame the electorate. We have our own minds and come to our own conclusions regarding who to vote for. Who do you think the electorate is? Some stupid lump of incompetents, who simply follow orders from newspapers? The electorate voted in a fair election on the 7th of May. The Tories won on the strength of their policies, and Labour lost on the weakness of theirs. The LibDems got annihilated (good). Get over it.

And, on the general point, Labour should move to the Right if they want a chance at being elected.

 

[George Hincapie]

Andy Burnham hopefully takes over leadership .

I hope so too. He is Capt Smarmy; no need to worry about Labour returning to power. Ever.

 

[joeyjojo]

On 2.) Labour's economic policy IN THE RUN UP TO THE 2008 CRISIS was a record of gratuitous overspending. In 1997 Labour inherited a debt of around £300bn, and in 2008, before the financial crisis, that had grown to over £500bn.

The nominal value of the national debt isn't as important as it's relative size. Between 1997 and 2008 the economy grew by about the same factor as that debt grew, so the debt as a % of the GDP stayed pretty flat.

http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/334/uk-economy/uk-national-debt/

A debt/GDP of 30-40% is not unusual. The "labour overspent" myth is just that, a myth.

Mediamacro myth 2: Labour profligacy

 

[elmarko]

You are only correct with point 1.)

On 2.) Labour's economic policy IN THE RUN UP TO THE 2008 CRISIS was a record of gratuitous overspending. In 1997 Labour inherited a debt of around £300bn, and in 2008, before the financial crisis, that had grown to over £500bn. Why?

Inflation accounts for over 35% of it (apr 70b), & the debt to GDP is what you should be looking at, as you have to also factor in the level of manageable debt is relative to the size & the economy - with spending increases in line with population rises (outside of direct spending).

Labour did a poor job, but nothing worse than any of the other entities would have done in the same place. This is a view supported by a majority of economists.

 

[Tummy]

I hope so too. He is Capt Smarmy; no need to worry about Labour returning to power. Ever.

I think he's the best candidate for the job out of the people whom are in the running.

I mean, sure there are questions over some aspects of his political career, but there are for everyone.

I think he would do a good job at bringing Labour voters back onside .

 

[joeyjojo]

Just reading a Guardian piece and thought of this thread with these paragraphs:

The problem will not be solved by Cooper or Chuka Umunna because the problem is not that Ed Miliband was too far left. “We mustn’t descend into left-wing factionalism,” David Blunkett said on Thursday night, as if all their problems could be solved if only they could return to a time when they were considered “centrist”. These words – left, far-left, centrist, right – have no objective meaning. The ideas of the centre ground – that the private sector is better at everything, that growth is the highest value for a society to aspire to, that people on benefits must be starved into work because they’re lazy – would five years ago have been called the right, and five years before that been called the far right.

What counts now as far left, many bridges too far for the Labour party – that housing is a human right, that tertiary education is an investment in the future that we all should share, that wages must be liveable or they don’t count as wages – would, within the past decade, have been known as common sense. To chase the centre is to chase the ever-shifting territory of your opponent’s demarcation, and to recoil at the charge that you are “left” is like crumpling at the insult “[sweary]”; it has no concrete meaning, and its abstract meaning is simply that a person disagrees.

Worth a read for anyone considering these issues.

Labour’s leader is not the problem. The party’s missing soul is

 

[The Geezer]

Your Political Compass
Economic Left/Right: -6.0
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.54

Answered the questions based on my ideology, I would say the ship has sailed where our governments think more about social cohesion rather than focus on commercial growth. We have been fed on a diet where money is the answer forgoing any focus on humanity.

 

[robgmun]

Just reading a Guardian piece and thought of this thread with these paragraphs:



Worth a read for anyone considering these issues.

Labour’s leader is not the problem. The party’s missing soul is

And as i have said, they can't win an election if they go left, the evidence is right there. People of the UK has been rejecting true Socialism since the 80's

 

[elmarko]

I think he's the best candidate for the job out of the people whom are in the running.

I mean, sure there are questions over some aspects of his political career, but there are for everyone.

I think he would do a good job at bringing Labour voters back onside .

For general public appeal Dan Jarvis would have done the trick (but he's not running), he would appeal to the mildly pro-military types who are normally quite hostile towards Labour.

 

[Tummy]

For general public appeal Dan Jarvis would have done the trick (but he's not running), he would appeal to the mildly pro-military types who are normally quite hostile towards Labour.

I am not so sure, I do not totally disagree but I think Burnham would be the better choice, personally.

 

[elmarko]

I am not so sure, I do not totally disagree but I think Burnham would be the better choice, personally.

For Labour to win they need to appeal to middle England, I can't see Burnham doing that personally - but I may be wrong.

Really a new face would likely do better.

 

[joeyjojo]

And as i have said, they can't win an election if they go left, the evidence is right there. People of the UK has been rejecting true Socialism since the 80's

The article says exactly the opposite of that I read it as there are plenty of people with humanitarian/socialist views in this country, but the Labour party has not represented them, suffering instead (my interpretation) from complacency and a lack of ideals. The SNP and Greens however have attracted these people, reflected in their 6% increase in the vote share.

 

[robgmun]

The article says exactly the opposite of that I read it as there are plenty of people with humanitarian/socialist views in this country, but the Labour party has not represented them, suffering instead (my interpretation) from complacency and a lack of ideals. The SNP and Greens however have attracted these people, reflected in their 6% increase in the vote share.

People can write articles coming out of there ears, doesn't make it fact

A left leaning Labour party has not won an election since 1978. As soon as Tony Blair left the party the Labour party became unelectable again.

 

[elmarko]

People can write articles coming out of there ears, doesn't make it fact

A left leaning Labour party has not won an election since 1978. As soon as Tony Blair left the party the Labour party became unelectable again.

There are other factors in play outside of how far left Labour were leaning during those time periods.

Most notably the quality of the leaders on both sides of the spectrum, but don't let a little thing like reality get in the way.

 

[robgmun]

There are other factors in play outside of how far left Labour were leaning during those time periods.

Most notably the quality of the leaders on both sides of the spectrum, but don't let a little thing like reality get in the way.

I'm not denying there are other factors but i believe the biggest one is on left wing policy. You can't blame poor leaders for losing 6 of the last 9 elections! The Labour party have struggled to remain relevant for decades and pandered to the ones with loud voices instead of the silent majority

 

[Freddie1980]

There are other factors in play outside of how far left Labour were leaning during those time periods.

Most notably the quality of the leaders on both sides of the spectrum, but don't let a little thing like reality get in the way.

The lesson to take from Thatcher and Blair is that a charismatic/engaging, popular leader combined with a strong economy equals successive governments and success. All David Cameron has to do is stop the Con's from imploding and keep the economy buoyant and he's good for another win if he wants it.

I'm not denying there are other factors but i believe the biggest one is on left wing policy. You can't blame poor leaders for losing 6 of the last 9 elections! The Labour party have struggled to remain relevant for decades and pandered to the ones with loud voices instead of the silent majority

Agreed, think about it - Foot, Brown, Miliband Vs. Blair, when you put it like that it paints a straightforward picture.

Looking at the candidate's it's looks like a dead man's line up, they have 1 shot to turn things around or at least stop the rot otherwise I could see UKIP splitting the Labour vote.

 

[Terminal_Boy]

Cameron is going to have his work cut-out pleasing the Tory voters, his back-benchers and keeping David Davis' quiet.