discodown Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 Apparently they are dropping the "New" from their name. Does it make a difference? Will they take a sudden lurch to the left after being very close to the centre? More to the point is Ed Milliband the man to inspire the movement? He seems to get called "Red Ed" but he doesn't seem that red to me. But then again I don't pay him much attention. http://www.politicshome.com/uk/story/14152/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 He seems about as tough as a soggy Wine Gum being chewed by a hungry T Rex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 Apparently they are dropping the "New" from their name. Does it make a difference? Will they take a sudden lurch to the left after being very close to the centre? They surely can't be that foolish. It was being on the Left that almost saw them wiped out by the Liberal/SDP Alliance, and it took over a decade to persuade the electorate that all that rubbish was behind them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sausage Dog Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 They surely can't be that foolish. It was being on the Left that almost saw them wiped out by the Liberal/SDP Alliance, and it took over a decade to persuade the electorate that all that rubbish was behind them. But 'New' Labour is now a tainted brand. Whatever good things Labour did - and I'm sure you'll all agree there were some - the brand is tainted by things like Iraq, political spin, MPs expenses and the budget deficit. So the new has to go if Milliband is going to make progress, and re-establish Labour as a party of Government. Look at recent history; it took Kinnock years to get rid of the looney left tag, and it took the Tories years to get rid of the sleeze tag after John Major's government were thrown out. You could argue, and some did, that on both occassions, they'd have come back quicker if they changed their names. Afterall, there's a lot of gullible people out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 Oh, ditching the "New" is probably a good idea, if only because it's silly to keep calling yourself the New Anything for twenty years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
espadrille Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 He seems about as tough as a soggy Wine Gum being chewed by a hungry T Rex. I really actually feel sorry for him..being put in that position I mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna Glypta Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 Oh, ditching the "New" is probably a good idea, if only because it's silly to keep calling yourself the New Anything for twenty years. It makes you wonder though. What would have happened if 10 years ago someone from the old SDP decided to call themselve the Labour Party as the name wasn't in use? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted February 19, 2011 Share Posted February 19, 2011 It makes you wonder though. What would have happened if 10 years ago someone from the old SDP decided to call themselve the Labour Party as the name wasn't in use? There are electoral laws in place to prevent that sort of thing. I'm pretty sure that New Labour retained rights to "The Labour Party" so that nobody else could use it; you would have to include other wording to distance yourself from them, such as Scargill's "Socialist Labour Party." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.