Should Labour move right or left?

[DrNorm]

A completely different direction and person to try and take the heat of Brown and Blair. Same s*it, different face. Especially if you factor in the "wrong" Miliband won.

 

No, if David Milliband had become leader, that would be same "s*it" (as you see it)

 

The fact that the "wrong" Milliand won, took Labour too far left for the voters. That's why they lost, not because Ed is the same as previous leaders.

 

Labour stood a much better chance with the right Milliband.

 

Corbyn may please many on the left of the party, but I don't think he's impressing the voters.

 

" ... the wider electorate thinks Mr Corbyn stands the least chance of returning Labour to power in 2020, the ComRes poll shows. In a dramatic twist, David Miliband, defeated by his brother in 2010, would stand the most chance of winning for Labour." The Independent

 

---------- Post added 18-08-2015 at 12:38 ----------

 

Who knows we may yet see a mass exodus of Labour Lemmings( I wish to be considered as a guide for them to the nearest cliff)

 

Splitter!

 

There really is no hope is there?

Edited August 18, 2015 by DrNorm

[MikeFrank]

I like Corbyn but he wont get elected into government... but neither would any of the others either... we keep hearing that a Corbyn win would make Labour unelectable... but they already are..

 

I can't see him gaining much support from those in the centre so it will be hard for him.... most people don't suffer austerity and couldn't care less.. The I'm alright Jack crew...

 

Corbyn won't get support from many people either because he is a supporter of mass immigration.. rightly or wrongly. Unfortunately this will sway a large section of the electorate away from him...

 

If we had a left wing person like Corbyn who would campaign to leave the EU and provide a sensible immigration policy where people are invited in on merit, with provision for Asylum Seekers also, then I would vote for him...

[RonJeremy]

I like Corbyn but he wont get elected into government... but neither would any of the others either... we keep hearing that a Corbyn win would make Labour unelectable... but they already are..

 

I can't see him gaining much support from those in the centre so it will be hard for him.... most people don't suffer austerity and couldn't care less.. The I'm alright Jack crew...

 

Corbyn won't get support from many people either because he is a supporter of mass immigration.. rightly or wrongly. Unfortunately this will sway a large section of the electorate away from him...

 

If we had a left wing person like Corbyn who would campaign to leave the EU and provide a sensible immigration policy where people are invited in on merit, with provision for Asylum Seekers also, then I would vote for him...

 

These are the people who pay for the people on benefits. They could care. They care a lot. They are the ones who ACTUALLY help the needy, the feckless and the lazy. They pay for the health service, the roads, the teachers, the police, the fire service and all the people in the town hall on their early retirement pensions.....

[WiseOwl182]

most people don't suffer austerity and couldn't care less.. The I'm alright Jack crew...

 

That's because the UK hasn't seen any austerity. Only the left wing media would report it as such.

[TJC1]

Crying kids in street, poverty, dirt austerity is everywhere. I voted this glorious govt in to end the madness. Look whats happened.

[tinfoilhat]

Crying kids in street, poverty, dirt austerity is everywhere. I voted this glorious govt in to end the madness. Look whats happened.

 

I've not seen any crying kids in my street. Maybe they've been shipped off to camps.

[Anna B]

That's because the UK hasn't seen any austerity. Only the left wing media would report it as such.

 

Have you any idea how insulting, heartless and hurtful that comment is to the many people who are homeless, hungry, or in distress because of the recession?

 

Behind perhaps every one of the unemployment statistics lies a person suffering loss; possibly redundancy and certainly difficulties. Don't tell them there's been no austerity, they're living it every day. And it's getting harder all the time.

[Vague_Boy]

Have you any idea how insulting, heartless and hurtful that comment is to the many people who are homeless, hungry, or in distress because of the recession?

 

The recession and austerity are not the same thing.

 

We still had the recession in 2008-2010, before so-called "austerity" measures were ever brought in.

 

Austerity is intended to deal with the massive overspending during Gordon Brown's tenure as Chancellor, a problem that existed before the financial crisis.

UK budget deficit hits new record [bBC News, Tuesday, 20 June 2006]

 

High levels of borrowing may force the government to take unpopular measures, either scaling back on spending plans or raising taxes, as it attempts to keep its finances under control, analysts said.

 

Well that didn't happen did it? Although Brown's successor, Alistair Darling, did promise this at the 2010 General Election:

 

Alistair Darling: we will cut deeper than Margaret Thatcher

 

Thinktank warns of 'two parliaments of pain' with spending slashed by 25% to repair black hole in finances

 

Alistair Darling admitted tonight that Labour's planned cuts in public spending will be "deeper and tougher" than Margaret Thatcher's in the 1980s, as the country's leading experts on tax and spending warned that Britain faces "two parliaments of pain" to repair the black hole in the state's finances.

 

Asked by the BBC tonight how his plans compared with Thatcher's attempts to slim the size of the state, Darling replied: "They will be deeper and tougher – where we make the precise comparison I think is secondary to an acknowledgement that these reductions will be tough."

 

LINK [The Guardian, 25 March 2010]

 

You can't see it can you? You can't see the quote that says that Labour were competing with the Tories in 2010 to show who would be toughest on cuts.

 

You're probably thinking "why has he left that big blank gap in his post"?

 

 

I seem to remember the homeless being around in 1997-2010. Y'know, during the period when house prices double or tripled and homes became much less affordable.

 

Why did that happen? I know, let's ask Gordon "I will not let house prices get out of control" Brown.

[alchresearch]

I seem to remember the homeless being around in 1997-2010.

 

Ditto foodbanks and zero hours contracts. But they way some talk, you'd think they were created in 2010.

[MikeFrank]

These are the people who pay for the people on benefits. They could care. They care a lot. They are the ones who ACTUALLY help the needy, the feckless and the lazy. They pay for the health service, the roads, the teachers, the police, the fire service and all the people in the town hall on their early retirement pensions.....

 

Very few ordinary people actually pay more into the system than they take out... I think the figure is £40,000 pa income to pay enough income tax to cover the public services you would use. So we'd all been in deep trouble without the rich.

 

There are very few feckless and lazy people. These are usually put on tv for the entertainment of the irate... Most people on benefit are there because of numerous reasons one small part of this is being lazy.