Ed Miliband Has Wrecked The Labour Party.

[truman]

Blair comparable with Karl Marx? I don't think so.

 

That's not what I was saying...

[blake]

Labour under John Smith would have won in 1997 but I don't think they'd have won 2 more elections under him.

 

I agree with this and further think that they may not even have won again not just twice, but even once, under Smith. But then a donkey could have run against Hague in 2001 and still won.

 

Smith should have run for leader in 1988, when Benn challenged Kinnock and ran for the last time. With him as leader, Labour may have won in 1992.

[alchresearch]

Yes if they'd been led by Karl Marx I think they may have got in in '97 ...the Tories had run out of steam...like you I doubt whether they'd have been in after that for quite a while..

 

Yep, the Tories had been in power too long, were full of affairs, sleaze, and disaster after disaster (poll tax, salmonella, BSE and John Gummer), and had leader after leader since Thatcher went.

 

Blair's polishing of Labour into New Labour was just the icing on the cake, or the difference of "victory" to "Landslide victory". Remember Scargill and Socialist Labour and the way it was mocked?

[Hillpig]

Blair comparable with Karl Marx? I don't think so.

 

Blair should mostly be compared to Hitler, Mussolini, Sadaam Hussein, Pol Pot, You know, war criminals.

 

---------- Post added 25-09-2013 at 14:30 ----------

 

That is very true...But I would dispute the timing element/opportunistic character of many such policies.

 

I don't believe such a measure (energy market "re-setting"/regulating with somewhat more than lip service), which has to potential to genuinely benefit the British public, should only ever be trotted out at election time: it should be a daily staple of governing...if our politicians-turned-governing heads had the national interest closer to their heart than their wallet.

 

This is a point which transcends all parties, btw - not meant to be directed at Labour alone.

 

The left wins an election, the right wins an election, rinse-repeat...when does Britain win an election?

 

It was Milliband as Energy Secretary, that encouraged the energy companies to invest and experiment in renewables and alternative energy resources.

 

He is therefore directly responsible for their huge R&D costs and is hypocritical (as usual) in attacking them.

[L00b]

It was Milliband as Energy Secretary, that encouraged the energy companies to invest and experiment in renewables and alternative energy resources.

 

He is therefore directly responsible for their huge R&D costs and is hypocritical (as usual) in attacking them.

Can't believe I'm actually doing this ("defending the left"), but...

 

(i) renewables and alternative energy resources were, and still are, very much needed, for the elementarily-simple reason that oil and gas natural resources are finite, their exhaustion is inevitable and, so far as the UK in particular is concerned, the country's ever-increasing dependence on imports creates an ever-growing national security issue. Nowt to do with being green/climate change this-that-the other; strategic reasons alone are enough.

 

(ii) much if not all of the Labour-introduced environment-friendly/carbon-reducing policies were according to international treaties (Kyoto etc.) driven by industrialised nations, not solely Tony/Gordon or even Ed for that matter. It was a (more or less) simple case of legislative compliance. If UK signs on the dotted line to enact, UK enacts - pretty fundamental concept.

 

(iii) there have not been "huge" R&D costs, wind power turbine technology is old as the hills, just the same as solar power. Their 'development' preceded Labour by quite some decades (a particularly big effort had been expended in the mid-70s, on the back of the '73 oil crisis...then 'shelved' for the most part once oil returned to an economical pricing level). And that's if you completely abstract the scientifical leaps and bounds of Nazi Germany during the war years in respect of synthetic petrol/lubricants. They're just become flavour of the month again. Sure, there is a lot of money being splashed on renewables, but that's not R&D, it's capital expenditure.

 

Now, by all means take pot shots at Milliband, personal ones if you feel like it - I don't care one bit for the man, he's got about as much charisma as a wet lettuce, and in political terms is just a wannabe Tony Blair. But to lay 'blame' at his feet for encouraging the adoption of renewable/alternative energy is a bit much, and a fair bit off. IMHO.

[John795]

Wasn't it wrecked in the 1970's and again in 2007 when they bankrupted the country. One thing for sure is they don't represent the ordinary person. The gap between rich and poor increased whilst labour were last in power.

[poppet2]

Yep, the Tories had been in power too long, were full of affairs, sleaze, and disaster after disaster (poll tax, salmonella, BSE and John Gummer), and had leader after leader since Thatcher went.

 

 

Which leaders were they then?

[alchresearch]

Major

Hague

IDS

Howard

[Manlinose]

Can't believe I'm actually doing this ("defending the left"), but...

 

(i) renewables and alternative energy resources were, and still are, very much needed, for the elementarily-simple reason that oil and gas natural resources are finite, their exhaustion is inevitable and, so far as the UK in particular is concerned, the country's ever-increasing dependence on imports creates an ever-growing national security issue. Nowt to do with being green/climate change this-that-the other; strategic reasons alone are enough.

 

(ii) much if not all of the Labour-introduced environment-friendly/carbon-reducing policies were according to international treaties (Kyoto etc.) driven by industrialised nations, not solely Tony/Gordon or even Ed for that matter. It was a (more or less) simple case of legislative compliance. If UK signs on the dotted line to enact, UK enacts - pretty fundamental concept.

 

(iii) there have not been "huge" R&D costs, wind power turbine technology is old as the hills, just the same as solar power. Their 'development' preceded Labour by quite some decades (a particularly big effort had been expended in the mid-70s, on the back of the '73 oil crisis...then 'shelved' for the most part once oil returned to an economical pricing level). And that's if you completely abstract the scientifical leaps and bounds of Nazi Germany during the war years in respect of synthetic petrol/lubricants. They're just become flavour of the month again. Sure, there is a lot of money being splashed on renewables, but that's not R&D, it's capital expenditure.

 

 

sorry, but lucid, well thought out, well argued, factually correct and clearly presented arguments are not welcome to many posters

[LeMaquis]

.. why does public money come into freezing energy prices..?

 

Er. I dunno. Maybe because the Treasury will get less back in taxes if fuel prices and profits are lower.

 

---------- Post added 25-09-2013 at 16:18 ----------

 

Blair should mostly be compared to Hitler, Mussolini, Sadaam Hussein, Pol Pot, You know, war criminals.

 

Didn't your darling IDS and Cameron vote to support the invasion of Iraq? (The answer's yes).

 

---------- Post added 25-09-2013 at 16:23 ----------

 

...when does Britain win an election?

 

That's a very naïve question seeing as government is about serving a multitude of mutually conflicting self-interests. Just because not everyone benefits from every policy doesn't mean the country in general doesn't benefit.