Should Labour move right or left?

[blake]

it is nothing short of ridiculous that they are trying to claim Labour's totally miniscule and derisory increase in vote share, when there were millions of votes going begging, represents some sort of advance for Labour. The only question is whether Labour's abject showing in 2015 was worse than when they also got totally stuffed in 1987, or 1983. I would say worse than 1987, but not quite as bad as 1983. But quite a close call.

[truman]

You forgot to mention that 85% of the electorate in Scotland didn't vote Tory, 73% in Wales and 58% in England. I think it's also proof that a lot of people who voted Tory suffer from Stockholm syndrome.

 

Even less voted for Labour....

[Stoatwobbler]

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/liz-kendall-to-punch-uks-last-coal-miner-2015052298524

 

LABOUR leadership hopeful Liz Kendall has promised to punch the last surviving British coal miner hard in the face.

 

Kendall said: “This miner, who lives in a terraced home on benefits and doesn’t even own a car, represents everything that Labour needs to leave behind. He worked down the mines for more than 40 years and never invested in the property market, never started his own business, no aspiration whatsoever. It will be my pleasure to deck him.”

 

Once Kendall has punched 62-year-old Roy Hobbs, she will confiscate the instruments of the Colliery Brass Band and melt them down to make a statue of Alistair Campbell.

 

Hobbs said: “She’s Labour, so I’m sure it’s for the best.”

[anarchist]

even before they had finished counting all the votes, but the rejection of Labour by the voters was already clear, you knew exactly how the left would react.

 

the left would blame Labour lost on having the wrong leader, even though the leader they did have was the most left wing one there was out of the 5 that ran in the 2010 leadership election apart from joke candidate Diane Abbott, the token Trot who never had a chance.

 

the left would blame the press and media in general and Rupert Murdoch in particular.

 

the left would blame Labour lost, because their policies were not left wing enough, even though Labour contested this election and ran on a platform relatively more left wing for 30 years. Every time Labour lose, Ken Livingstone comes out and says the reason why Labour lost was because the policies were not left wing enough. But when Labour win, Ken Livingstone never says that if Labour had been more left wing than they were, then they would have won by more. Ken Livingstone only says the Labour policies were not left wing enough, when Labour lose.

 

and of course what the left can be relied upon most of all to do when they lose, is blame the voters themselves, for being stupid. When really it is them, the left, that are stupid, for living in the past and not realising that the voters are not today anything like as left wing as they were decades ago and never will be again.

 

The biggest factor in Labours loss was Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling. Labour might have been able to bluster about worldwide recession in 2007/2008 but not the crazy spending they did trying to buy votes before the 2010 election. It was all to no avail as Labour lost that election and also paved the way to lose the 2015 election as well.

 

Since 2010 the Tories have got respect for creating jobs, and cutting the deficit. Labour lost further credibility by telling everyone that Osbourn he was getting it wrong whilst he cleared up their mess and created 2 million new jobs.The Libdems got destroyed. What has changed since 2010 is the Libdem seats were mainly taken by the Tories. UKIP took votes off everyone without gaining seats and the SNP destroyed Labour in Scotland.

 

That spending spree in 2009/2010 destroyed Labours credibility to manage the economy and handing LD seats to the Tories means that the mountain they have to climb is so much higher. Labour might well get another million votes in 2020, but unless they get those votes in seats they don't already hold they will be in opposition for a very long time.

Edited May 22, 2015 by anarchist

[alchresearch]

I think the ID card fiasco was another factor in Labour's 2010 defeat. And the PFI disasters which were surfacing.

[salou4]

I've given statistics and facts to support this on other threads, so won't repeat them here, .

 

No you haven't, you've just expressed your opinions as if they are facts.

Here's a fact for you: No Labour Government has ever left office with unemployment lower than when it came in.

That's a shameful record for a party that claims to be "for the working man".

[Titanic99]

No you haven't, you've just expressed your opinions as if they are facts.

Here's a fact for you: No Labour Government has ever left office with unemployment lower than when it came in.

That's a shameful record for a party that claims to be "for the working man".

 

That one statement sums up the ignorance of the electorate as much as any other.

 

What it tries to do is make it look like Labours record on employment was worse that it was when it came to office.

 

What it fails to do is mention is the years before the financial crisis where in every year it was lower than the so called employment miracle we are seeing now.

 

Here’s the graph that shows it, so if the Tories are to be commended for the current figures why can’t we recognise it was even better most of the time under Labour.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10604117

[DrNorm]

The Labour party is certainly doomed if it has people in it who think that "reining in spending" is the way to boost the economy.

 

Spending to boost the economy is a short term fix if it's not targeted spending. It's like burning fivers to keep warm. Yes you're warmer in the short run, but what about tomorrow?

 

We must invest in the right things for tomorrow that will stimulate a productive economy. Merely loosening the purse strings and seeing what happens is not the best use of the resources that we do have.

 

We need a strong government focused on social justice, but the foundation of a strong government isn't one that's crippled by debt. Like it or not public resources come from taxing private individuals and companies. A strong economy is the basis of a strong nation. (There is a strong case to rebalance taxation and have tighter regulation, but those policies must go hand in hand with responsible spending).

 

Yes, the left are hampered by a mostly hostile right wing press, but they'd do themselves a big favour and make fewer enemies if they woke up to the realities a responsible government must face: you can't continue to borrow and ignore the need for an enterprising economy (noting the distinction between valuable entrepreneurs and parasitic speculators).

 

---------- Post added 24-05-2015 at 15:15 ----------

 

For all Blair's faults, and there were plenty of them, he knew how to win elections. The trick is, to work out why and how Blair won the elections.

 

I think he recognised that a political party must straddle more than one point on the political spectrum.

 

When I say I'm to the right within the party, that doesn't mean I'm picking a fight with those whose views are to the left. I recognise that others within the party have differing views, but try not to lose sight of a common cause that will be beneficial for all.

 

The Labour Party must recognise differences within its ranks but work for common causes if it is to survive and become electable again.

 

In today's Observer, David Skelton (Tory) is quoted as saying "The skilled working class deserted Labour in 2010 and haven't come back. There is a really big opportunity for the Tories there."

 

The Tories are muscling in on what should be natural Labour territory.

 

The Labour party must not give up on the skilled working class, non-union members, aspirational voters or any other voter they can find common cause in establishing a society with equal opportunities and social justice.

Edited May 24, 2015 by DrNorm

[Tommo68]

Labour ought to ask their own party members questions like this.

 

They provide a sort of function in parliament bringing to people's attention things that the press won't or perhaps can't about the conservatives but were it no tfor that I'd suggest that they just go away.

.

[DrNorm]

"Blue collar Conservatives"? I heard this term used on the radio this morning. I can't say I was listening, but it's obviously a term relating the skilled working class who have deserted Labour.

 

As I've said, the Labour party needs to bury differences and find ways to build on the common causes they share with blue collar workers (skilled working class/aspirational voters/non-union members).

 

After all what's the point of being a political party which focuses on the differences between its members and causing potential allies to defect to the other side?