Posted July 9, 201015 yr ...They will need to commit a Stalin-esque purge of all the "Nu Labor" types responsible for their downfall... So, that means basically de-selecting everyone who voted for Iraq, everyone with any kind of involvement with the expenses scandal or the banking crisis..... Basically, the party grass roots should take the power back and do to these fukkin' spivs what Neil Kinnock did to Militant in the 80s.... Discuss....
July 9, 201015 yr Or they could just give up. In recent years the Labour Party had not so much become New Labour as Alternative Conservative ... the only thing that has remained the same is the name. I think 'the party known as Labour' will eventually get back in but it won't be for at least another 10 years (and that is wishful thinking). As long as the Lib Dems are consigned to history (where they belong) then I'm fairly (just fairly mind) satisfied. Norma
July 9, 201015 yr Really? Although Iraq is an issue, it seems to be a case of 'the damage has been done' (at least from all those I spoke to when I was campaigning in Tooting - a lot of Muslim voters refuse to forgive Labour, even if it would be for an MP who opposed the war/someone who wasn't an MP at the time). Certainly, Labour's role in the banking crisis re: deregulation and all that isn't particularly well known (you'd be shocked how many people thought the recession came about because of high council taxes! :lol:), so I doubt it's all that much of an obstacle in the eyes of the voters. The BIG problem that Labour needs to tackle is showing that immigration isn't the problem, but a failure to deal with the resultant stresses on jobs and housing stock WAS...
July 9, 201015 yr do you really think that 'old labour' is a vote winner? i dont. old labour was needed after the second world war but times have moved on and a shift towards communism simply will not work.
July 9, 201015 yr I don't think they should re-adopt their rabidly pro-trade union position of the 70s either. THAT particular facet of Old Labour is unelectable these days. They obviously need to be reasonably pro-markets. What they do need to do is shift to the left on welfare issues and employment, to convince the average person that they're on their side, most notably staunchly opposing the benefit freezes/cuts, opposing the cutting in education and insisting public sector jobs should not be cut until the private sector has grown to a position where it can take on those public-sector workers who are being made redundant. But just bleating about "deficit reduction plans" without actually specifying anything won't get them anywhere.
July 10, 201015 yr ^Socialism =/= communism. yep... in the 70's the unions leaders and socialist supporters were largely communists. we all now know that communism doesnt work.
July 10, 201015 yr yep... in the 70's the unions leaders and socialist supporters were largely communists. we all now know that communism doesnt work. I'm not a communist myself, but all that we can really conclude is that authoritarian communism doesn't work - especially as Marx's brand he espouses in the Manifesto (i.e. that it takes place in an already industrialised country so that the bounteous profits which have started to eat themselves can be shared amongst all, rather than somewhere where the profits don't even exist yet) hasn't been tried yet... Even so, I don't think true social democracy is really all that unelectable.
July 10, 201015 yr Communism is unelectable as it's widely recognised by the majority of the population as not working on a narional level. Socialism is very much electable, especially as the centre-right continues to rape so many people and more and more Lib Dems continue to defect. It would require something drastic for the Conservatives to win a majority in the next election and it could be as soon as this time next year if the Alternative Vote referendum fails and the coalition splits. Labour simply needs to elect a good, solid leader (credit to Harriet Harman so far) and it's surely only a matter of time. I genuinely think that this year's election result was down largely to three simple factors: 1. Fading appeal of a long-standing government. 2. Misunderstanding of the banking crisis and what caused it. 3. The Conservatives becoming more mainstream electable despite little policy change due to a new leader. The first obviously isn't affecting Labour anymore, and the third will disappear the longer the coalition carries on. The only question is whether the second factor has been conquered or alternatively whether the new Government makes enough of a hash of the country so that the blame Labour took is cancelled out.
July 10, 201015 yr Author do you really think that 'old labour' is a vote winner? i dont. old labour was needed after the second world war but times have moved on and a shift towards communism simply will not work. Labour never was "Communist" though, this is a myth propogated by the Right-Wing press to terrify everyone into not voting for Micheal Foot or Neil Kinnock in the 80s.... Communism = Stalin, Mao, etc, Labour was never about that, and frankly what saved this country from sliding into the abyss during the banking crisis was an adoption of Keynsian economic policies anyway... So, yes, Labour does need to reconnect with all the people who felt betrayed by what happened post-9/11... And if you think that Unionism is an old-fashioned idea, well, I would say the present situation where workers are being exploited and treated like cattle and are too terrified to speak out in case they lose their jobs is a far OLDER idea which dates back to the wholesale exploitation of workers in the mills and factories during the Industrial Revolution.... Labour needs to go "back to basics", or re-boot itself or do something to regain its credibility... And that aint gonna happen if they elect one of these bloody Milibands as leader that's for fukkin' sure....
July 10, 201015 yr Labour needs to go "back to basics", or re-boot itself or do something to regain its credibility... And that aint gonna happen if they elect one of these bloody Milibands as leader that's for fukkin' sure.... I don't see why electing Ed Miliband would be a step backwards? David Miliband, provided he actually IS just a Blairite puppet, I see your point...
Create an account or sign in to comment