Should Labour move right or left?

[DrNorm]

and Andy Burnham isn't worth commenting on. I lost interest when I read the 50:50 female cabinet thing. Utter nonsense.

 

And Corbyn's stance on equality?

 

Aim is for 50% of Labour MPs to be female

 

"Corbyn has pledged gender parity with a 50:50 shadow cabinet, and to work to raise the proportion of female Labour MPs from 40% to 50%."

 

How is that different?

 

[Thanks for link janie48]

 

---------- Post added 14-08-2015 at 20:10 ----------

 

I don't think of political polarisation would do the country any harm at all.

 

Political activists thrive on differences, but most people aren't seeking an extreme to counter another extreme.

 

Positioning the party as far away from the right as possible, also distances the party from the centre. Not a great tactic.

[tinfoilhat]

And Corbyn's stance on equality?

 

Aim is for 50% of Labour MPs to be female

 

"Corbyn has pledged gender parity with a 50:50 shadow cabinet, and to work to raise the proportion of female Labour MPs from 40% to 50%."

 

How is that different?

 

[Thanks for link janie48]

 

---------- Post added 14-08-2015 at 20:10 ----------

 

 

Political activists thrive on differences, but most people aren't seeking an extreme to counter another extreme.

 

Positioning the party as far away from the right as possible, also distances the party from the centre. Not a great tactic.

 

Why isn't a good tactic? We've got 44% of the voting population not voting at all and I'd bet a sizeable chunk won't because "they're all the same" and if they're talking about the main three English parties they aren't far wrong.

[DrNorm]

We've got 44% of the voting population not voting at all and I'd bet a sizeable chunk won't because "they're all the same" and if they're talking about the main three English parties they aren't far wrong.

 

And by "all the same" that often means all politicians are seen as self-interested and argumentative. You know, politicians who must disagree with the other guy because the colour of his/her rosette is different.

 

Positioning the Labour party further from the centre will further alienate those who are already disaffected with politics who want to see an intelligent political process where our elected representative serve the country, not their party or the vested interests that fund it and call the shots.

Edited August 14, 2015 by DrNorm

[Eric Arthur]

Why isn't a good tactic? We've got 44% of the voting population not voting at all and I'd bet a sizeable chunk won't because "they're all the same" and if they're talking about the main three English parties they aren't far wrong.

 

Similar things were said to appeal to disaffected voters in Germany before the 1932 election.

[tinfoilhat]

Similar things were said to appeal to disaffected voters in Germany before the 1932 election.

 

Cripes that's a bit random. Percentages of people who voted in the 1970s and early 80s was well over 70% and labour and the Tories were hugely different - foot and thatcher are a million miles away from Cameron and milliband who weren't that different. And we managed not to start a world war as well. If you look at the graph there's a nose dive in 97 when Blair went all new labour (ie a lurch to the right of centre).

 

You don't need to be an extremist - Corbyn will dial it down should he win anything I'm sure.

 

http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout45.htm

Edited August 14, 2015 by tinfoilhat

[drummonds]

And Corbyn's stance on equality?

 

Aim is for 50% of Labour MPs to be female

 

 

so about 90 of them need to loose their seats in 2020. piece of cake.

[I1L2T3]

And by "all the same" that often means all politicians are seen as self-interested and argumentative. You know, politicians who must disagree with the other guy because the colour of his/her rosette is different.

 

Positioning the Labour party further from the centre will further alienate those who are already disaffected with politics who want to see an intelligent political process where our elected representative serve the country, not their party or the vested interests that fund it and call the shots.

 

You're missing the big picture and that is beneath a veneer of going through the motions of being disagreeable the Tories, Labour and the LibDems all have a broadly similar neoliberal-driven policy set. Everything else is just window dressing.

 

I think that is why we are seeing a very palpable panic within the Tories and the right wing press, and from within the Labour party itself, because it seems that Labour could be about to go seriously off-message and stop toadying to its corporate buddies.

 

If Labour moves away from that right of centre consensus isn't that a good thing? Genuine politics, genuine differences, genuine choice? We're not talking here about Miliband's intellectualised pussy footing around but policies articulated in very plain terms that resonate with the public. Some of the policies might be mad but then again some of the Tories policies are mad anyway.

[Anna B]

I think people are sick to death of political 'spin' and the homoginized, airbrushed, polished, 'on message,' bland politicians; all controlled by party central and the opinion polls; trained to never give a straight answer to a straight question, and who daren't tell the public the truth, so patronise them instead.

 

The major players also seem to have a sense of entitlement, that clashes with the public's perception of them, and the loss of respect they've undergone in the wake of the recent series of scandals.

 

That's why the public are looking for change.

[Vague_Boy]

That's why the public are looking for change.

 

Well if Jeremy Corbyn does win the leadership contest, the next 4.5 years could be a little more interesting than they might otherwise have been.

[*_ash_*]

4 different parties?

They looked similar to me in these shorter pitches, in their own words. Lots of buzz words. Choosing what points to mention in the restricted space and showing what really matters to them.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/14/labour-leadership-vote.

 

e.g.

 

Burnham - "...and we will make transport affordable again by committing to the renationalisation of our railways."

 

Cooper - " The radical approach of the future is to reform capitalism so it serves people, not to try to destroy it with nothing to put in its place."

 

Corbin - "Labour must be clearer in what it stands for and should commit to the public ownership of the railways."

 

Kendall - "– not spending billions of pounds reopening coal mines or renationalising huge swaths of the economy."

 

On these quotes Burnham has, imo, the most clarity.

 

It was a generalisation based on what I read. I think there are similarities as you point out, but I was commenting on the slight differences.

 

And Corbyn's stance on equality?

 

Aim is for 50% of Labour MPs to be female

 

"Corbyn has pledged gender parity with a 50:50 shadow cabinet, and to work to raise the proportion of female Labour MPs from 40% to 50%."

 

How is that different?

 

 

Same as above ^^

 

I think aiming for 50% female is nonsense on both candidates.