Current Affairs The Labour Party

[sd_1992]

There seems to be an acceptance that the Labour Party in its current state is, to be gentle, unlikely to command a majority any time soon. On here anyrate, and polls, (yeah, I know), seem to back this up.

To this observer without a dog in the fight, why dont the Labour Party ask themselves why? Instead of their core support telling everyone else who isnt a paid up member, that they are wrong?

Or have I missed something?

It is easier to do that than admit that the further to the left Labour moves the worse their electoral defeats are...

 

[bring the ghost on]

Unfortunately, today's leader has to look good and talk smooth. The only one I can envisage would be David Miliband.

In all seriousness it has to be David Miliband. If not it's another long spell on the sidelines.

Jesus, there is a lot of David Miliband flattery going on in here.

The man is a huge Blairite who is still tarnished by the New Labour legacy. He was so petulant when his brother beat him that he refused to talk to Ed for several years and later took great delight in kicking him whilst he was down by speaking about how poor Ed's leadership campaign the day after the GE result.

He is a typical New-Labourite - white, middle class, male, bland, populist, boring political self-parody. No actual leadership skills or anything to empathise with. Straight out of Oxbridge, no real life experience, shoehorned into a safe seat under Blair and threw his toys out of the pram because he believes he was the leader the party needed.

If this man is the answer, then God help the Labour party.

 

[tsubaki]

Jesus, there is a lot of David Miliband flattery going on in here.

The man is a huge Blairite who is still tarnished by the New Labour legacy. He was so petulant when his brother beat him that he refused to talk to Ed for several years and later took great delight in kicking him whilst he was down by speaking about how poor Ed's leadership campaign the day after the GE result.

He is a typical New-Labourite - white, middle class, male, bland, populist, boring political self-parody. No actual leadership skills or anything to empathise with. Straight out of Oxbridge, no real life experience, shoehorned into a safe seat under Blair and threw his toys out of the pram because he believes he was the leader the party needed.

If this man is the answer, then God help the Labour party.

He has spent the last three and a bit years working for a charity, mind - at $600,000 a year, but at a charity nonetheless.

 

[Mrk]

Jesus, there is a lot of David Miliband flattery going on in here.

The man is a huge Blairite who is still tarnished by the New Labour legacy. He was so petulant when his brother beat him that he refused to talk to Ed for several years and later took great delight in kicking him whilst he was down by speaking about how poor Ed's leadership campaign the day after the GE result.

He is a typical New-Labourite - white, middle class, male, bland, populist, boring political self-parody. No actual leadership skills or anything to empathise with. Straight out of Oxbridge, no real life experience, shoehorned into a safe seat under Blair and threw his toys out of the pram because he believes he was the leader the party needed.

If this man is the answer, then God help the Labour party.

Sadly for the Labour party, all of those things also describe Corbyn, which may go some way to explaining why they're about as popular as Piers Morgan. They should think about letting a woman have a go at the top job - they can't be any worse.

 

[bring the ghost on]

Sadly for the Labour party, all of those things also describe Corbyn.

Yep - all of them except "populist"!

 

[bring the ghost on]

He has spent the last three and a bit years working for a charity, mind - at $600,000 a year, but at a charity nonetheless.

What a luxury for him. He gets to "do his part" whilst pocketing $600k.

 

[Mrk]

Yep - all of them except "populist"!

Well, I'm not too sure about that... He's very unpopular, but that doesn't mean he isn't interested in using populist policies. I'd argue that railway renationalisation is a pretty populist policy.

 

[roydo]

Well, I'm not too sure about that... He's very unpopular, but that doesn't mean he isn't interested in using populist policies. I'd argue that railway renationalisation is a pretty populist policy.

Not for anyone who remembers what it was like when it was.

 

[bring the ghost on]

Well, I'm not too sure about that... He's very unpopular, but that doesn't mean he isn't interested in using populist policies. I'd argue that railway renationalisation is a pretty populist policy.

My perception is that he doesn't use policies which are perceived to populist, he uses policies which he is passionate about. If re-nationalisation of the railways is popular, that's not the reason he's using it - it's because he's been a lifelong advocate of it. His position on other issues such as higher taxes and increased welfare spending are far from populist.

 

[Mrk]

My perception is that he doesn't use policies which are perceived to populist, he uses policies which he is passionate about. If re-nationalisation of the railways is popular, that's not the reason he's using it - it's because he's been a lifelong advocate of it. His position on other issues such as higher taxes and increased welfare spending are far from populist.

To be honest, I think every politician is populist - some more than others, granted, but you don't get to the top of the greasy pole without peddling populist crap every once in a while.

 

[jal123]

Since when was being centrist in the Labour Party an insult?

'Blairites' are the only members of the Labour Party who have affected this country in the last generation, some weird fella and his IRA loving mate haven't got any influence in this country and sadly we will all find out, and suffer, from June.

 

[peteblue]

There seems to be an acceptance that the Labour Party in its current state is, to be gentle, unlikely to command a majority any time soon. On here anyrate, and polls, (yeah, I know), seem to back this up.

To this observer without a dog in the fight, why dont the Labour Party ask themselves why? Instead of their core support telling everyone else who isnt a paid up member, that they are wrong?

Or have I missed something?

That's happened at the last two elections. They don't learn, they probably don't wish to, but it will still come as a complete surprise when they get battered....

 

[jal123]

That's happened at the last two elections. They don't learn, they probably don't wish to, but it will still come as a complete surprise when they get battered....

It will come as a surprise to the students and people with no life experience who see our dear leader as a credible alternative Peter.

And that's the problem.

 

[JonS]

Not for anyone who remembers what it was like when it was.

I remember it and think the railways were better when they were nationalised. Now you pay a fortune, have to stand sometimes (in London at least) and they are probably more unreliable than when they were dear old British Rail (which admittedly wasn't that reliable).

Nationalised railways are not a communist thing. Many countries in Europe have them

 

[tsubaki]

Not for anyone who remembers what it was like when it was.

er - it cost less in terms of subsidy than it costs now, the trains were of better quality (and were getting better still), they were more comfortable, tickets were cheaper and the trains were built here.

The main (probably only) benefit of privatization is that the Government is now legally obliged to fund the network properly, or at least have been since Hatfield, and that they can afford to advertise it properly, and that pay for train drivers has gone through the roof. Other than that it has largely been a complete waste of time and money.