I've got to agree wih you on that, the time has come that Labour can win an election convincingly without having to steal Conservative votes like they did in 1997, so why not?

 

No chance of that mate.

 

1) Boundary changes that take away 50 MP's will be heavily weighed in favour of the Conservatives.

2) Tax cuts just before the 2015 election I would bet my house on.

3) Housing benefit changes will drive Labour voters out of the inner cities and have them all in city suburb ghettos which will reinforce Conservative rule within cities.

 

I think that Labour would struggle to win an election NOW let alone in 4 years time.

Gosh, don't some people have short memories? I seem to remember you being pretty critical of Blair and Brown, Grebo...

 

New Labour were sh't, what the country needed (and still does), is a REAL Labour Party, like they were in the days of Bevan, Atlee, Harold Wilson, Tony Benn, etc.. If we'd've had that prick Blair in 1945, we probably never would've had an NHS or Welfare State....

 

But Labour are the lesser of two evils, surely?

 

I do agree, though, that Labour should stop pandering to Conservative voters - New Labour people always say they NEED to win in "Middle England" like in 1997, but why? You don't NEED to win as big a majority as they did in '97 to win an election. Labour could potentially win the next election without taking a single extra seat in the south (whoever wins the Midlands ALWAYS wins the election, without fail).

No chance of that mate.

 

1) Boundary changes that take away 50 MP's will be heavily weighed in favour of the Conservatives.

2) Tax cuts just before the 2015 election I would bet my house on.

3) Housing benefit changes will drive Labour voters out of the inner cities and have them all in city suburb ghettos which will reinforce Conservative rule within cities.

 

I think that Labour would struggle to win an election NOW let alone in 4 years time.

 

Firstly, it's very doubtful that the next election will BE in 2015. It seems pretty clear that the House of Lords is going to insist on fixed term parliaments of 4 years (not 5 years, like the Coalition wants), meaning it will probably be in 2014 - probably before the boundary changes have been finalised.

 

Secondly, you're forgetting one crucial factor: the massive move of left-wing Lib Dem voters to Labour. I'd say a good 10% of the electorate fall into that category (around 40% of Lib Dem voters at the last election), which gives Labour a core vote of 40% - which would be almost certainly enough for them to win, whatever the boundaries, whatever the electoral system. I actually think the Tories will poll about the same at the next election as they did last year (or maybe even marginally increase) - but the Lib Dem exodus to Labour will still be enough to push them ahead.

This is the sort of language I want to hear from real Labour...

 

"No amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep, burning hatred for the Tory Party. So far as I am concerned, they are lower than vermin..."

- Aneurin Bevan

 

What I didn't want to hear was Tony Blair professing his "admiration" for Thatcher, or indeed Gordon Broon supporting the idea of a f**king STATE FUNERAL for the evil old b'itch..... That's not what real Labour does in my book...

 

I want to hear Ed Miliband use Bevan's sort of language to attack Cameron and Clegg, none of this wishy washy, "Noo Labor" crap....

The difference is, the sorts of people you'd win off that sort of language are the people who are voting for you anyway. I'm no fan of the Tories but tribal language like Bevan's has no place in a civilised society - or in a government which ought to be uniting the people rather than dividing them as Thatcher's did. There's a middle ground between the two, don't get me wrong, but I don't think you get a government that can be taken seriously when you've just called at least a third of the population lower than vermin.

Firstly, it's very doubtful that the next election will BE in 2015. It seems pretty clear that the House of Lords is going to insist on fixed term parliaments of 4 years (not 5 years, like the Coalition wants), meaning it will probably be in 2014 - probably before the boundary changes have been finalised.

 

Secondly, you're forgetting one crucial factor: the massive move of left-wing Lib Dem voters to Labour. I'd say a good 10% of the electorate fall into that category (around 40% of Lib Dem voters at the last election), which gives Labour a core vote of 40% - which would be almost certainly enough for them to win, whatever the boundaries, whatever the electoral system. I actually think the Tories will poll about the same at the next election as they did last year (or maybe even marginally increase) - but the Lib Dem exodus to Labour will still be enough to push them ahead.

But when it comes to the next general election - whenever it is - what are left-leaning Lib Dems in all these southern seats (like mine) where Labour are nowhere going to do? Are we going to vote Labour thus making sure the Tories win the seat or are we going to vote Lib Dem? I suspect that when faced with that reality, a lot of Lib Dem voters in the south will stick with the party. In the north it may well be a very different story.

The difference is, the sorts of people you'd win off that sort of language are the people who are voting for you anyway. I'm no fan of the Tories but tribal language like Bevan's has no place in a civilised society - or in a government which ought to be uniting the people rather than dividing them as Thatcher's did. There's a middle ground between the two, don't get me wrong, but I don't think you get a government that can be taken seriously when you've just called at least a third of the population lower than vermin.

 

Sorry Tyron, but the "middle-ground" is Blair-ism.. And look where that got us... An illegal war, sucking up to the Yanks, the worst recession in our country's history and a merciless attack on civil liberties... What needs to be done now is for Labour to re-assert its roots, in decent Working Class values and Unionism...

 

I WANT Tribal language. It's time to be more militant... The Tories aren't holding back, so why should Labour...? The Tories ARE vermin...

And militancy gets you another party split and gets it so that people don't take you seriously anymore, and we all know what happened when we did that in the 1980s...I don't accept that Blair is the middle ground. I say there is a middle ground between saying we're all Thatcherites now and saying that all Torys are lower than vermin, and I think Ed's doing a fairly good job of that at the moment. He's playing the long game rather than getting all worked up, because he realises that, like it or not, there's NOTHING he can do about things now other than analyse and force government defeats on things like the forest sell-off. Going militant would harm our cause and harm the country far more than it would help it, as it would effectively guarantee a Tory government for the next generation, and that's something I don't think any of us want to see...

And militancy gets you another party split and gets it so that people don't take you seriously anymore, and we all know what happened when we did that in the 1980s...I don't accept that Blair is the middle ground. I say there is a middle ground between saying we're all Thatcherites now and saying that all Torys are lower than vermin, and I think Ed's doing a fairly good job of that at the moment. He's playing the long game rather than getting all worked up, because he realises that, like it or not, there's NOTHING he can do about things now other than analyse and force government defeats on things like the forest sell-off. Going militant would harm our cause and harm the country far more than it would help it, as it would effectively guarantee a Tory government for the next generation, and that's something I don't think any of us want to see...

 

Say what you like dude, I'm through listening to so-called "reason".. We compromised too much and we got the Blairs... The biggest whores in the f**king world, you have Tony charging bloody telephone directory fees for after dinner "speaking engagements" and Cherie putting herself about as well... And, my GOD, have you actually read the bloody "Mills and Boon" crap they have the nerve to call "autobiography"??? Who the f**k wants to hear about their sex lives...??? It's puke-inducing, cringe-worthy tat, what the hell that has to do with politics Christ only knows, although it seems to be "inspiring" Sally f**king Bercow to do her own version on Twitter. I mean, Jesus, why dont they just do an online blog "Secret Diary of a Westminster Whore".....? Blair-ism DISGUSTS me almost as much as Thatcherism, and I'm sorry, but Ed Miliband needs to put some serious amounts of clear, RED water between him and Blair before he'll ever get my vote....

The fact is though that Blair won elections. Michael Foot didn't. Kinnock came a lot closer - by moving the party to the right - but he still lost. In the days when Labour and the Tories got well over 90% of the vote between them your argument might have some validity but those days are long gone.

But when it comes to the next general election - whenever it is - what are left-leaning Lib Dems in all these southern seats (like mine) where Labour are nowhere going to do? Are we going to vote Labour thus making sure the Tories win the seat or are we going to vote Lib Dem? I suspect that when faced with that reality, a lot of Lib Dem voters in the south will stick with the party. In the north it may well be a very different story.

 

One thing's for sure, strong Labour supporters like my grandparents who live in Cornwall aren't going to be willing to tactically vote for the Lib Dems again - if they'd known the Lib Dems would go into coalition with the Tories in advance of last year's election they would've preferred to vote Labour in order to boost their national share of the vote. Had they and other Labour supporters done that, it would've boosted them to about 33%, which could've meant it might've been seen as legitimate for Labour to stay in power (assuming it still would've been a hung parliament) - so they have a right to feel cheated, and won't be doing it again.

Say what you like dude, I'm through listening to so-called "reason".. We compromised too much and we got the Blairs... The biggest whores in the f**king world, you have Tony charging bloody telephone directory fees for after dinner "speaking engagements" and Cherie putting herself about as well... And, my GOD, have you actually read the bloody "Mills and Boon" crap they have the nerve to call "autobiography"??? Who the f**k wants to hear about their sex lives...??? It's puke-inducing, cringe-worthy tat, what the hell that has to do with politics Christ only knows, although it seems to be "inspiring" Sally f**king Bercow to do her own version on Twitter. I mean, Jesus, why dont they just do an online blog "Secret Diary of a Westminster Whore".....? Blair-ism DISGUSTS me almost as much as Thatcherism, and I'm sorry, but Ed Miliband needs to put some serious amounts of clear, RED water between him and Blair before he'll ever get my vote....

 

That's all very well and good, but elections aren't won and lost on your vote believe it or not. I still believe what I said that Labour CAN win future elections without stealing Tory votes but it'll be a hell of a lot harder if they're using such divisive language. Do you think Murdoch's lot would pass up on a chance to slam the party for saying things like that? If Ed came out with such a comment, you can bet your house that the backlash in today's media-soaked society would be massive.

One thing's for sure, strong Labour supporters like my grandparents who live in Cornwall aren't going to be willing to tactically vote for the Lib Dems again - if they'd known the Lib Dems would go into coalition with the Tories in advance of last year's election they would've preferred to vote Labour in order to boost their national share of the vote. Had they and other Labour supporters done that, it would've boosted them to about 33%, which could've meant it might've been seen as legitimate for Labour to stay in power (assuming it still would've been a hung parliament) - so they have a right to feel cheated, and won't be doing it again.

But the effect of that would have been more Tory MPs, fewer Lib Dems and the same number of Labour MPs. How would that have made it more legitimate for Labour to have stayed in power?

That's all very well and good, but elections aren't won and lost on your vote believe it or not. I still believe what I said that Labour CAN win future elections without stealing Tory votes but it'll be a hell of a lot harder if they're using such divisive language. Do you think Murdoch's lot would pass up on a chance to slam the party for saying things like that? If Ed came out with such a comment, you can bet your house that the backlash in today's media-soaked society would be massive.

 

Labour have lost a sh"t-pile of votes between '97 and 2005 from people such as myself totally p!ssed off with them (well, to be more accurate, totally p"ssed off with Blair and Brown).. They also lost a sh"tload of members too in the years 2001-2005.... They'd BETTER want our votes back if they think they're gonna be able to win again....

The fact is though that Blair won elections. Michael Foot didn't. Kinnock came a lot closer - by moving the party to the right - but he still lost. In the days when Labour and the Tories got well over 90% of the vote between them your argument might have some validity but those days are long gone.

 

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, if you'd've had Blair and Brown in the Post-War instead of Atlee and Bevan you never would've had an NHS or a Welfare State, FACT.... I chose that quote for a reason, because it's plain to see that if you sell out your principles and your ethics for a few scraps off the table and a minesterial car you end up with Cable and Clegg, the two dirty sell-outs that we all hate... Bevan was a man of honour and principle, a true working class hero, who knew who the enemy was.... We NEED someone like Bevan in Politics today....

One thing's for sure, strong Labour supporters like my grandparents who live in Cornwall aren't going to be willing to tactically vote for the Lib Dems again - if they'd known the Lib Dems would go into coalition with the Tories in advance of last year's election they would've preferred to vote Labour in order to boost their national share of the vote. Had they and other Labour supporters done that, it would've boosted them to about 33%, which could've meant it might've been seen as legitimate for Labour to stay in power (assuming it still would've been a hung parliament) - so they have a right to feel cheated, and won't be doing it again.

 

Further to this - a new poll for the south-west puts the Lib Dems a distant third (and this is their heartland!), well behind Labour.

 

http://www.thisisdevon.co.uk/news/Support-...il/article.html

Whenever I hear the saying hung parliament I just think of a parliament having a big willy lol

love

They have both had crap periods and good periods.

 

What really, really, really pisses me off is the idea that many people seem to have, that (generally) things done by Labour are good because they are left-wing and therefore nice and kind and generous and caring and fluffy, and things done by the Conservatives are bad because they are right-wing and hateful and bigoted and evil and every single one is a big bad milk-snatching land-owning virgin-sacrificing devil-spawn.

 

To me, the Tory Party of 100 years ago was an over-privileged, unfair thing (call it bad) and the Labour Party was a source of help for the poor and badly-treated workers (so effectively good). That was then. It sure isn't the case now.

 

Blair could easily have been a Tory. Gordon Brown might be committed to Labour but he's hardly worked ten-hour shifts in hard manual jobs like many Labour voters have/had (correct me if I'm wrong) - he's had things relatively soft and enjoyed a university education in the 1970s - how many Labour supporters had that then? Thatcher wasn't a typical, rich family-background Tory - she was lower middle-class and worked her way up (and the 'Milk Snatcher' tag - well, that policy had already been decided before she took on the portfolio). Ted Heath went to a grammar school and also worked his way up. Michael Foot was a left-winger who probably never knew a day's hardship in his life.

 

Look at the parties now. For a start, what difference is there between Cameron and Miliband (and indeed Clegg?). Precious little, apart from presumably different family background ideologies, and maybe a few thousand quid in the family coffers (I doubt Miliband's family is as rich as Cameron's family, but let's face it, they were/are hardly paupers). No, David Cameron hasn't spent time living in a crappy council house with no money or prospects - well neither has Ed nor David Miliband!

 

Tory and Labour politicians alike are often privately-educated, privileged, rich, hypocritical, and have no idea what life is like for millions of the people under their rule. That always has been and always will be.

 

The ideal would be a mix of right- and left-wing ideologies - but when's that gonna happen?

 

They have both had crap periods and good periods.

 

What really, really, really pisses me off is the idea that many people seem to have, that (generally) things done by Labour are good because they are left-wing and therefore nice and kind and generous and caring and fluffy, and things done by the Conservatives are bad because they are right-wing and hateful and bigoted and evil and every single one is a big bad milk-snatching land-owning virgin-sacrificing devil-spawn.

 

To me, the Tory Party of 100 years ago was an over-privileged, unfair thing (call it bad) and the Labour Party was a source of help for the poor and badly-treated workers (so effectively good). That was then. It sure isn't the case now.

 

Blair could easily have been a Tory. Gordon Brown might be committed to Labour but he's hardly worked ten-hour shifts in hard manual jobs like many Labour voters have/had (correct me if I'm wrong) - he's had things relatively soft and enjoyed a university education in the 1970s - how many Labour supporters had that then? Thatcher wasn't a typical, rich family-background Tory - she was lower middle-class and worked her way up (and the 'Milk Snatcher' tag - well, that policy had already been decided before she took on the portfolio). Ted Heath went to a grammar school and also worked his way up. Michael Foot was a left-winger who probably never knew a day's hardship in his life.

 

Look at the parties now. For a start, what difference is there between Cameron and Miliband (and indeed Clegg?). Precious little, apart from presumably different family background ideologies, and maybe a few thousand quid in the family coffers (I doubt Miliband's family is as rich as Cameron's family, but let's face it, they were/are hardly paupers). No, David Cameron hasn't spent time living in a crappy council house with no money or prospects - well neither has Ed nor David Miliband!

 

Tory and Labour politicians alike are often privately-educated, privileged, rich, hypocritical, and have no idea what life is like for millions of the people under their rule. That always has been and always will be.

 

The ideal would be a mix of right- and left-wing ideologies - but when's that gonna happen?

 

All of what you've said is right, but I think the emphasis now isn't on the difference in backgrounds but the difference in political principles. Cameron, no matter how much he waters it down, is in favour of a low tax, low investment state that keeps his friends happy. Miliband would rather see greater investment earned through higher taxes because he believes that it's the fairest way of doing things and will make his party's core voters better off. The fact there's less of a gap between their backgrounds than there used to be beween the leaders of the two major parties is a shame in a way as the Labour leader in particular can be perceived to be less in touch with his party's voters but that's the way it goes - another generation down the line, you could get another wave of top-end politicians from poorer backgrounds.

No, David Cameron hasn't spent time living in a crappy council house with no money or prospects - well neither has Ed nor David Miliband!

 

John Major was bought up in a council house to an unemployed father who did a bit of circus juggling. David Davis was also bought up in a council house too so you can come from a 'crappy council house' and still be a Tory. Many of the richest businessmen in this country started in a council house so it is stereotyping somewhat that you have to have been bought up in a big house and gone to private school to be a Tory.