1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

The Labour Party: Where do we go from here?

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by q974739, Nov 25, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. StriderX

    Caporegime

    Joined: Mar 18, 2008

    Posts: 25,505

    In the Ultra-pro Tory press bias between 2005 and recent times, would you really have expected the LibDems with the introduction of an increasingly Americanised news cycle, to do that without suffering anyway?

    I think they had a legitimate fear that if they were responsible for the downfall of government (which doubtless would just mean the Tories picking up their seats), they would have lost regardless. It is simply impossible for them to ever do it again under either camp, as they'll be seen as pushing lololmarxism or appeasing fascists depending on the echo chamber. Ofcourse if they simply win outright (tough call tbh, but is possible) this is irrelevant, but they need to keep adding a base to their voting floor or it ends up collapsing again. (also irrelevant under PR aswell)

    I simply see no value in a coalition between either of them right now.
     
    Last edited: Jun 30, 2019
  2. GAC

    Mobster

    Joined: Dec 11, 2004

    Posts: 4,187

    lets be blunt the lib dems didnt help themselves while in coalition, just look at the way this minced around the tuition fee rises where half the party voted for half against and a hand full of abstainers and this is after they made it a election pledge.

    they did what they call labour and the conservatives over by not following through on election pledges. so now some will see them as just another political party who will say anything to get a vote.

    i know people say the lib dems kept the conservatives from going full on nasty party when in coalition but i honestly feel they didnt do enough or didnt at least make it public how far they where pushing, they seemed more interested in having press conferences in the garden making nice which showed them more like they where just toeing the line to keep in power rather than getting stuck in.
     
  3. Dolph

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 17, 2002

    Posts: 47,774

    Location: Plymouth

    Supporting a referendum alone will not be enough. To win over the remain voters now, after many have already voted for other parties, Labour will have to support a referendum and support unequivocally campaigning to remain in the eu.
     
  4. Dolph

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 17, 2002

    Posts: 47,774

    Location: Plymouth

    The big problem with the turion fees pledge was that it was the pledge of a party of protest, not a party of government, who actually have to consider the fiscal and political impacts of implementing such a policy compared to all the other competing demands of government.

    Couple that with a voter base who often didn't even understand what policies the party actually had, and were most shocked when they started implementing those policies rather than the fantasy policies that existed in the voters head, and the backlash was inevitable. The lib Dems then didn't help themselves by forgotting who was there opponent in most of their heartland seats in 2015.
     
  5. Meridian

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 11,948

    Location: Vvardenfell


    Which they will never do, because not only does the current leadership support Brexit (either because they think the EU is preventing a Socialist Utopia, or else they want to crash out badly under the Tories, and hope to get a big protest vote), but so does a sizeable part of their voter base. The reason Brexit is a mess is because the traditional Left v Right argument is no longer the main argument, but it is how the parties are divided. The debate now is over liberal v conservative (note the lack of Capitals) and that splits both main parties in two. No one is entirely sure which way conservatives will jump (even the Tories are scared of losing them to a Brexit party) and the liberal parts of both parties can agree on nothing else so are not likely to unite. It's difficult to see how this can be fixed in any way at all with the current system of politics.

    Time for another debate about PR?
     
  6. GAC

    Mobster

    Joined: Dec 11, 2004

    Posts: 4,187

    fantasy or not the lib dems made that pledge not the voters making it up, they should never have made it but little nicky clegg wanted them student votes, its the same with some of the stuff corbyns trotting out though like re nationalise everything and ending student debt nice ideals to try and sell but financially they would be extremely hard to actually do within a first term gov. sure he could try and write off student loans and end the system easily enough but financially its just a bad idea, tweaking the system which to be blunt isnt that bad if people actually look at it and how you pay back you're loan is workable but not the whole sale change he wants.

    as for re nationalise things thats a whole other kettle of fish especially when its not a franchised system like the water companies where you would have to buy out shareholders at vast expense. the railways could be done eventually just let the franchises pass and dont renew them but without it being properly thought through ( it would probably be the unions trying to dictate how this would work no doubt so id imagine some rather bizzae wage requests rather than investing any possible savings) it would only be reversed come the next conservative government weather it was a success or not, just look at the east coast main line where it was taken back to public ownership then after doing really well ended up being franchised out again and its now back in public ownership again!
     
  7. chrcoluk

    Mobster

    Joined: Feb 27, 2015

    Posts: 4,844

    Thats the issue, there doesnt seem to be another leader elect who will keep the same political leaning.

    Fast track grace blakeley in then there is a replacement I suppose.
     
  8. Mr Jack

    Capodecina

    Joined: May 19, 2004

    Posts: 19,094

    Location: Nordfriesland, Germany

    Tony Blair's government was never "Tory-lite", it may have been to the right of where you and I would like it to be, but it was never Tory-lite. Blair and Brown achieved a great deal of good for the UK. Imperfect, yes, but every government is in reality.
     
  9. Rroff

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 13, 2006

    Posts: 68,873

    It is kind of a weird one in a way there were certainly elements of Tory-lite but also some significant departures from Tory-like thinking based on Conservatism.
     
  10. chrcoluk

    Mobster

    Joined: Feb 27, 2015

    Posts: 4,844

    It was tory lite.

    They basically increased NHS and education spending, but taxes remained low, and was no re nationalisation or reversal of council housing policies. They even increased outsourcing to private companies.
     
  11. Dolph

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 17, 2002

    Posts: 47,774

    Location: Plymouth

    Social democracy is tory lite now?
     
  12. Gigabit

    Mobster

    Joined: Apr 9, 2012

    Posts: 11,778

    I am talking about Labour 2010-2015, which did very much try to be Tory-lite.
     
  13. Gigabit

    Mobster

    Joined: Apr 9, 2012

    Posts: 11,778

    I tend to think New Labour was left wing in principle but more right-wing in implementation. The first term was a solid period of Government, to be honest.
     
  14. Meridian

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 11,948

    Location: Vvardenfell

    It was at the time. Of course the Tory party and the Overton window have shifted even more Right since then, which is why they appear more centrist. But by any objective viewing of the left-Right scale New Labour were to the right of the centre line, made clear by the fact that they pretty much they allowed unfettered capitalism, and followed almost all the old Tory policies. That makes them Tory Lite, not Labour Lite. If they had been standing on their policies in 1979 they would have been indistinguishable from the Tories of the time. In some polices they would have been more Right. The movement of the Overton window since 1979 has been fairly large and steady.
     
  15. Dolph

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 17, 2002

    Posts: 47,774

    Location: Plymouth

    So basically it really is impossible to be on 'the left' and also respect property rights, as anything that doesn't involve state ownership and control of the economy, means of production and property distribution is not the left.

    Glad we finally cleared that up.
     
  16. robgmun

    Capodecina

    Joined: Apr 30, 2006

    Posts: 15,933

    Location: London

    I would agree with that, from 1997 to 2001, they were a solid good government and i did vote for them a second time. Then they went hard socialist and opened the immigration floodgates and throwing bad benefit money after good
     
  17. StriderX

    Caporegime

    Joined: Mar 18, 2008

    Posts: 25,505

    Immigration is not socialist at all, and the floodgates are even further open now and have been for ages under this supposedly not socialist government...
     
  18. Meridian

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 11,948

    Location: Vvardenfell


    I'm sorry, but I couldn't hear what you said over the sound of straw men being knocked down? So let's clarify.

    Extreme Right (again, economic axis only): no state control of anything, except maybe Law and the military. Capitalism is unfettered. There are no state benefits, only private housing: work or starve. A full demand economy.

    Extreme Left: the state/collective controls everything. This includes all methods of production and service. Full state benefits for all, state-owned housing etc. A full command economy.


    Are we at least agreed on that much? Because then all that divides us is the continuum between. Because, like many Right-wingers, you frequently have an odd idea of where the middle ground is, because - again like many Right-wingers - you tend to think of yourself as near the centre. To point out the obvious: if the Left is the state controls everything, and the Right is the state controls nothing, then the mid-point is that the state controls about half of life. That's obviously open to some wiggle-room: half of all jobs? Half of all types of job? Half the money? But the idea is sound.

    That means an economy where the government controlled all the main services (energy, phones, rail, buses, post, for example) would still be right of centre as it controls rather less than half the economy or such. And this was the Tory party up to about 1979. The Labour view at the time was for the state to also run a few of the "vital" means of production, such as cars and ships. That moves them a bit over the line to the left, but not far: most means of production were still private. So now some questions:

    1) So which of those two alternatives was closer to Tony Blair's New Labour? Obviously the first, but actually NL were more Right than that, as they not only did not nationalise anything, they even worked towards privatisations. Those may have been put on indefinite hold, but much work was done to set up things like the FSS, the PO and OS for future privatisation. That is Right wing. Maybe not far, but Right. You can call it Social Democracy if you wish, but that's just a fancy name for One-Nation Toryism. In they days wet it meant something and wasn't just a silly slogan.

    2) Where is the Overton window now? A lot further Right than 1979. This is Thatthcer's legacy, not an economy based mostly on the City and house prices. Ideas which were once extreme Right are now mainstream, and ideas that are really in the Middle are dismissed as "Raving Socialism". I've not heard Corbyn discuss privatising anything that is not a vital service, so in 1979 he would be Middle: Tony Benn would hate him. He only appears to be Far Left because the Overton Window is so off-centre.
     
  19. robgmun

    Capodecina

    Joined: Apr 30, 2006

    Posts: 15,933

    Location: London

    I meant hard socialist in general (immigration is more libertarian but Labour seems to have a hard-on for mass immigration for obvious reasons)
     
  20. Tony Edwards

    Mobster

    Joined: Feb 4, 2018

    Posts: 4,815

    WOW!
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.