Should Labour move right or left?

[chem1st]

Labour should move left towards the centre, and occupy the ground previously occupied by people like Margaret Thatcher.

 

They should then go a a teeny weeny little bit further left and start a large council housing building program.

 

We'd have less poverty, more equal distribution of income, but still have increasing wealth and incomes for the rich, although also for the poor and middle, and a better standard of life for everyone, that would be getting better for all.

[*_ash_*]

Did anyone watch any of this the other night? (I'm guessing not many ) but not worthy of own thread I don't think)

 

1955 first televised election

 

I don't mean all of it of course! It's about 5 hours. The first 16 mins or so were quite interesting.

 

What I thought was interesting were the 'statements' made by the 2 main parties and the Liberals. Starts about 4m30s to about 16mins.

 

In this time, I think they wouldn't have all the TV advisors etc. that all the parties will have now, i.e. 'avoid saying this', 'DO say this' etc. (and it shows!), everything they said seemed to be much less inhibited by the knowledge now that a slip-up could 'go viral' in seconds.

 

However, I was surprised that the arguments and things weren't much different then.

[DrNorm]

Labour should move left towards the centre,

 

... a better standard of life for everyone, that would be getting better for all.

 

Hear hear. Unfortunately party politics (left and right) seems to be about division and appealing to partisan sections of the voters.

 

Bring on Direct Democracy. We have the technology. Let the people vote on issues, not for representatives once every five years. (Is there a smilie for "in dream land"?)

 

In the mean time, well said chem1st.

[alchresearch]

Not sure if it made the national news, but caught this on local news last night:

 

Labour objects to Derek Hatton bid to rejoin party

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32909887

 

I wonder what his game is? Jumping on the chance to take the party further left?

[SteveJ68]

I can't see why Labour must move right to win over the 24% who voted Tory. They need to target the 76% who didn't vote for the Tories. Move left, end this austerity bull and give people some bloody hope!

[tinfoilhat]

I can't see why Labour must move right to win over the 24% who voted Tory. They need to target the 76% who didn't vote for the Tories. Move left, end this austerity bull and give people some bloody hope!

 

They haven't got in being left wing for decades. The last time they were in they did sod all to curb corporate excess, but introduced a huge amount of benefits and stealth taxes.

[SteveJ68]

They haven't got in being left wing for decades. The last time they were in they did sod all to curb corporate excess, but introduced a huge amount of benefits and stealth taxes.

 

Let's see what happens when this mob do their worst in the next few years?

[I1L2T3]

OK it seems I do need to repeat some of those things.

 

In the 60-year period 1948-2007, there were 8 years in which per capita GDP went up more slowly than inflation (a "real terms recession"). The Tories were in power at the start of 7 of those years, and 3 of them were in the middle of a period of Tory rule (so you can't always blame it on "cleaning up Labour's mess", whereas you could blame the one exception on "cleaning up the Tories' mess").

 

The Attlee government turned a deficit into a surplus within three years of the end of WWII, largely by taxing those who could afford it (and spending the proceeds more or less judiciously). Whereas we're still running a deficit 7 or 8 years after the global financial crisis which, though bad enough, wasn't quite on the scale of WWII.

 

The biggest increase in public net debt, as a percentage of GDP, since 1946 occurred in 2012. The debt was bigger in 1997 (at the end of the previous Tory administration, which had run a deficit for 6 years on the trot) than in 2008, before the costs of the financial crisis had kicked in.

 

The Tories took us into the ERM, which cost us billions of pounds, whereas Labour kept us out of the Euro, which was a factor in mitigating the effects of the financial crisis here.

 

As for unemployment, it's also the case that every post-war Tory administration has left office with unemployment higher than when it came into power (I haven't looked at pre-war figures). You'll also recall that unemployment more than doubled within 5 years of the start of the Thatcher administration, and that Norman Lamont told us that high unemployment was a "price well worth paying" to keep inflation down.

 

In fact, unemployment was lower at the end of the Attlee administration than at the start, but I'll admit that that was a special case due to (a) the need for labour during the post-war reconstruction, and (b) that government being more or less Socialist, and therefore committed to full employment as a matter of policy.

 

Those are all facts.

 

We are always told that the Tories clear up the mess each time and leave the economy in better shape when they leave office. It's just propaganda that doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

 

The truth is the Tories are just as much of an economic wrecking ball as Labour. Both have been disastrous for this country.

[tinfoilhat]

Let's see what happens when this mob do their worst in the next few years?

 

Do you think they'll out-nasty thatcher? Three massive majorities on the trot.

[DrNorm]

I can't see why Labour must move right to win over the 24% who voted Tory. They need to target the 76% who didn't vote for the Tories. Move left, end this austerity bull and give people some bloody hope!

 

It's more of a question of not losing natural allies rather than shifting everybody within the party to the right. Not to abandon those on the left of the party, but to try to encompass those on the right. It's not an either/or thing.

 

Think about it. The Tories are winning over people who previously voted Labour - the "blue collar Conservatives".

 

Why are the Labour party so happy to lose these allies and lose elections?