Labour Leadership battle

[tobyjugg2]

Just watching Victoria Derbyshire at friends house.

 

Labour have had it haven't they

 

:/

[unclebulgaria67]

Just watching Victoria Derbyshire at friends house.

 

Labour have had it haven't they

 

:/

 

Not really. There is a saying, a week is a long time in politics.

 

Remember back to the early 2000's when the Tories were labelled the 'the dead parrot party'. Labour were in the lead in terms of majority of public support until about 2008. Then the financial crash hit and the Tories managed to persuade the public that Labour caused the worldwide crash and the countries debts. Of couse this is not true.

 

Labour will recover and could win in 2020, BUT they need to offer something different to the Tories. There is no point presenting the electorate with virtually the same plans as the Tories. Where are the new policy ideas, that the public might support !

[tobyjugg2]

BUT they need to offer something different to the Tories. There is no point presenting the electorate with virtually the same plans as the Tories. Where are the new policy ideas, that the public might support !

 

Exactly, and all I'm hearing from these 4 is rhetoric and waffle with no substance.

 

 

--- avoiding real answers to ANY of the questions.

Now we know the tories avoided answers to MANY questions but Labour appear to have absolutely no real answers - just lots of waffle about what should be not ways to achieve them.

[unclebulgaria67]

Exactly, and all I'm hearing from these 4 is rhetoric and waffle with no substance.

 

Yes, but that is normal after an election defeat. Once a leader is elected they can start to organise the party in a way they think can lead to an election win.

 

The UK election system is broken, as the government mostly aims policies at those who are likely to vote. The people who vote are those with something to lose. Tories won over 45% of pensioner votes because it was thought that Labour might start to reduce entitlements. Younger people don't bother to vote, if they are not offered something to vote for.

[tobyjugg2]

Yes, but that is normal after an election defeat.

 

But I think that the last two elections and the continuing crash of support for Labours 'normal' is the issue.

 

Lets take the very emotive example of the Tories cutting benefits.

 

Labour say it was done wrong, and I agree, but the simple fact they are saying it should have been done differently rather than Labour INITIATING those changes in a more Social way when they were in power says it all.

 

That changes were and are needed should be clear to anyone who is not blinded by their own self-interests. Even the Tories implementation is better (for the country as a whole) than leaving it as it was, but Labour should have driven more practical social reforms when they were in power for so long - and they didn't. Mind you there probably would have been uproar from the Labour ranks even for a Labour driven fairer change - so they probably rightly thought they would be in a lose-lose situation.

 

The Tories have taken the bull by the horns and implemented changes that suites their policies - as they should (be true to their policies and practices).

You WONT see Labour reversing these changes if they do get in, neither did you or would you see Labour introducing such changes.

Both parties are driven by the noisy minorities, there is no-one actually doing what is best for the majority.

 

.. and regarding young votes - I think the Liberals have introduced them to the lies of politics and painted it darkly for life for all those young Lib voters - and they all have paid for it.

[Conniff]

I think the major downfall of labour was it's reluctance to speak about the economy. It was questioned / asked about it for at least a 12 month run up to the election but it just turned the subject to something else.

[unclebulgaria67]

The way i see it. UK, the same as other countries is going through a period of change, greater than it has seen before. Political parties don't have the answers.

 

The question is. How can the UK economy earn the money required to pay for all of the various services and infrastructure it needs, to cater for the population ?

 

UK is part of a global economy, competing for all the raw materials, investment, trade etc. Wages are kept down, because otherwise some companies will invest elsewhere to gain a better return. This is where tax credits came in, to assist people to be able to live. These credits will be removed, quicker than the minimum wage will be increased. This means less spending in the economy, less profitable businesses and less business tax paid. Austerity can cause economies to shrink, when really expansion is the only way to increase revenues to deal with a bigger population.

 

Why are supermarkets less profitable ? It is not just about competition, as people are spending less. There are more consumers due to population increase. If people have high living costs and wages have not increased to compensate, then they have to cut back on some spending.

 

The UK needs to build millions of new homes and if government can assist with this, that is the priority. It will stimulate the economy and help everyone.

[tobyjugg2]

I think the major downfall of labour was it's reluctance to speak about the economy. It was questioned / asked about it for at least a 12 month run up to the election but it just turned the subject to something else.

 

I think you are partially, and probably most importantly, right.

But I would actually take it further, despite being what most (including myself) would consider to be a grass roots Labour person - Labour has no plan in which all their rhetoric could actually have a chance of becoming reality. They rely on nasty Tories doing the 'dirty deeds' which is the only way Labour can do what they do - else the nation would be bankrupt.

 

The Tories have a plan and Vision

Labour has no plan, just Vison (aka illusion)

 

The Tories have policies, upon which they apply spin to make them palatable to more people

Labour has rhetoric, which sounds socially good but is nothing but spin.

 

So unless Labour resolve their internal differences to an adequate level, as was done under Blair, they are not just useless, and not only a liability to the country, WE have no clue as to what we should expect from them.

and more than this they need the vision to come up with a viable plan and strategy to implement those policies in a realistic way which WE can believe in.

 

At the moment all they do is spout the buzzwords

We need :

The Vision

Something concrete not just the words

The Plan

Something, Anything concrete to support the possible implementation of that vision.

 

Just spouting

We have a vision for a fairer Britain for all

and similar foundation-less, plan-less, meaning-less rhetoric is worth NOTHING.

 

 

 

 

Not really. There is a saying, a week is a long time in politics.

 

Remember back to the early 2000's when the Tories were labelled the 'the dead parrot party'. Labour were in the lead in terms of majority of public support until about 2008.

 

Then the financial crash hit and the Tories managed to persuade the public that Labour caused the worldwide crash and the countries debts. Of couse this is not true.

 

unclebulgaria67,

Of course it is true that it was Labours fault.

Whoever instigated the things leading up to it, be it Thatcherism, dropping the Gold standard or labour overspending,

 

... it happened on a LONG Labour watch. So the blame sits with them before anyone or anything else..

[tobyjugg2]

Anyway, my personal opinions on the 4 candidates given that my No1 choice isn't running.

 

Andy Burnham

The definition of what is wrong with labour - all rhetoric but believes what he says

 

Yvette Cooper

Just does NOT come across as genuine. All fake body language hidden poorly and manipulated poorly, although she will undoubtedly get better at it, but really says FAKE bulls****er to me.

 

Liz Kendall

Wolf in sheeps clothing - perhaps Labours Margaret Thatcher with a social conscience.

 

Jeremy Corbin

The true social left, but perhaps now is not the time for this - maybe deputy?

 

 

.... Now I think Harriet Harmon and Liz Kendall would be fearsome, but would need someone like Jeremy Corbin.

[unclebulgaria67]

I think you are partially, and probably most importantly, right.

But I would actually take it further, despite being what most (including myself) would consider to be a grass roots Labour person - Labour has no plan in which all their rhetoric could actually have a chance of becoming reality. They rely on nasty Tories doing the 'dirty deeds' which is the only way Labour can do what they do - else the nation would be bankrupt.

 

The Tories have a plan and Vision

Labour has no plan, just Vison (aka illusion)

 

The Tories have policies, upon which they apply spin to make them palatable to more people

Labour has rhetoric, which sounds socially good but is nothing but spin.

 

So unless Labour resolve their internal differences to an adequate level, as was done under Blair, they are not just useless, and not only a liability to the country, WE have no clue as to what we should expect from them.

and more than this they need the vision to come up with a viable plan and strategy to implement those policies in a realistic way which WE can believe in.

 

At the moment all they do is spout the buzzwords

We need :

The Vision

Something concrete not just the words

The Plan

Something, Anything concrete to support the possible implementation of that vision.

 

Just spouting

We have a vision for a fairer Britain for all

and similar foundation-less, plan-less, meaning-less rhetoric is worth NOTHING.

 

 

 

 

 

 

unclebulgaria67,

Of course it is true that it was Labours fault.

Whoever instigated the things leading up to it, be it Thatcherism, dropping the Gold standard or labour overspending,

 

... it happened on a LONG Labour watch. So the blame sits with them before anyone or anything else..

 

So you blame the British Prime Minister at the start of WW2, rather than Hitler and the Nazis ? That is the what you are saying. Also you blame British PM's before WW2 for not dealing with the situation i.e to stop the rise of the Nazis.

 

Sh*t happens, but you cannot always blame the person in charge at the time. The fault is 100% with the Banks for running such risks.

[tobyjugg2]

So you blame the British Prime Minister at the start of WW2, rather than Hitler and the Nazis ? That is the what you are saying. Also you blame British PM's before WW2 for not dealing with the situation i.e to stop the rise of the Nazis.

 

Sh*t happens, but you cannot always blame the person in charge at the time. The fault is 100% with the Banks for running such risks.

 

"... it happened on a LONG Labour watch. So the blame sits with them before anyone or anything else.."

 

Perhaps I should have said alongside the bankers rather than assuming that was a given - all of whom have escaped any real blame or retribution.

 

Banking regulation is the duty and responsibility of the government of the day no matter who DE-regulated it, particularly when Labour in their long watch

COULD have changed those regulations,

and clearly SHOULD have

 

I'm still waiting for senior bankers to be penalised in any real way by ANY government

- again the governments fault - Labour, Conservative and Lib-Dem.

[citizenB]

Anyway, my personal opinions on the 4 candidates given that my No1 choice isn't running.

 

Andy Burnham

The definition of what is wrong with labour - all rhetoric but believes what he says - So did Tony Blair, look where that got us !!

 

Yvette Cooper

Just does NOT come across as genuine. All fake body language hidden poorly and manipulated poorly, although she will undoubtedly get better at it, but really says FAKE bulls****er to me. - This was the lady along with her OH that switched properties in order to maximise THEIR take from the government purse !!

 

Liz Kendall

Wolf in sheeps clothing - perhaps Labours Margaret Thatcher with a social conscience. - We need someone who is up front and honest - not projecting one image and being another.

 

Jeremy Corbin

The true social left, but perhaps now is not the time for this - maybe deputy? I might like this man, not sure I would vote for him though

 

 

.... Now I think Harriet Harmon and Liz Kendall would be fearsome, but would need someone like Jeremy Corbin.

 

Harriet Harman is a dangerous lady.. to the electorate.. I couldn't care less that she might be the downfall of her party.

[unclebulgaria67]

L

"... it happened on a LONG Labour watch. So the blame sits with them before anyone or anything else.."

 

Perhaps I should have said alongside the bankers rather than assuming that was a given - all of whom have escaped any real blame or retribution.

 

Banking regulation is the duty and responsibility of the government of the day no matter who DE-regulated it, particularly when Labour in their long watch

COULD have changed those regulations,

and clearly SHOULD have

 

I'm still waiting for senior bankers to be penalised in any real way by ANY government

- again the governments fault - Labour, Conservative and Lib-Dem.

 

Agree about the Bankers needing to face investigation and prosecution. I don't blame Labour for lack of regulation, as there was no appetite for additional regulation before the crash. There was a TV programme about the seeds of the crash and it goes back to the 1980's. Had Reagan/Greenspan/Thatcher not encouraged casino Banking, then we would not have ended up in such a mess. Banks would have continued their sober traditions of not taking too much risk.

[unclebulgaria67]

Harriet Harman is a dangerous lady.. to the electorate.. I couldn't care less that she might be the downfall of her party.

 

I cannot think of a current Labour MP who would make a great PM. Where is Labours star, with the charismatic appeal to get the electorate listening to them ?

 

I like Hilary Benn, as i think he is a man of integrity and has some of the communication skills of his father. But whether he has the organisational leader skills, i don't know.

[snowdragon]

always thought Hilary was a girls name!

[determindator]

Just watching Victoria Derbyshire at friends house.

 

Labour have had it haven't they

 

:/

 

Take yourself back to 1997.

 

The Tories were written off.

 

Oh yeah and they just about survived in the last election, had to suffer a coalition.

 

We haven't seen how their policies will affect people yet. They may have something to say.

 

Oh and BTW Mrs T and Co, as Uncle B says, created irresponsible lending and casino bankers along with the yankies.

[tobyjugg2]

Oh and BTW Mrs T and Co, as Uncle B says, created irresponsible lending and casino bankers along with the yankies.

 

That was PART of the cause in my view,

as was dropping the gold standard

... as was the inaction of the Labour government when they had the seats and votes to do something about it- but didn't, and during that same period the fidding and self serving of the Bankers reached absolutely epic proportions!

 

 

So if no one, even apparently hardcore Labour apologists, are cheered by any of the candidates, what hope for Labour in the real world?

or could it be that catering for the hardcore left is/would be the death of the Labour party?

 

Any suggestions?

[unclebulgaria67]

Labour need massive organisational change in the party around the country. They cannot compete with the Tories financially, even with Trade Union money. Somehow they have got to create a mass membership party, which is more democratic than it is at the moment. This will have to be done through online social media, where members can influence the policies of the party.

 

The other issue, is that people may want different policies in different parts of the country. In Scotland, there should be a separate Labour party that is dedicated to rebuilding its grassroots support. SNP have become the party for Scotland and Labour controlled from London will have extreme difficulty in changing this.

 

So to summarise, modernisation and more direct accountability to the public is the key to Labour having a chance at future elections. The better start soon, as it will take years of hard work to do what is required.

[tobyjugg2]

So to summarise, modernisation and more direct accountability to the public is the key to Labour having a chance at future elections. The better start soon, as it will take years of hard work to do what is required.

 

Have you any idea what Labour REALLY stand for in terms of actual policies supported be even outline plans of how to implement them? Let alone party structure changes?

I don't.

[unclebulgaria67]

Have you any idea what Labour REALLY stand for in terms of actual policies supported be even outline plans of how to implement them? Let alone party structure changes?

I don't.

 

Get the party structure right first. Decide what drives the Labour party e.g social fairness, consumer/workers protection, state playing a role in providing infrastructure needs.

 

The BIG difference between Labour and Tories is public versus private. The Tories believe in the private sector deciding markets with as little intervention as possible. Labour are interested in the public sector playing a role and that the private sector markets won't always deliver for the country what it needs.

 

Labour could invest in council housing held in public ownership. The Tories would get private companies to build and own social housing. That is a difference.

 

Labour could start a state investment Bank to invest in things which private Banks refuse to lend to. The Tories would never set up a state owned Bank. The Bank could utilise experienced business people to help them look at the business plans being proposed to make sure the risk was acceptable.

 

Just a few ideas, but Labour could easily offer different policies to the Tories, which the public would support.

[Conniff]

Have you any idea what Labour REALLY stand for in terms of actual policies supported be even outline plans of how to implement them? Let alone party structure changes?

I don't.

 

It doesn't stand for anything any longer. Long gone are the days of 'are you with me brothers', it's more now about 'what would be popular to say to the public to get them to vote for me'.

 

I'm afraid all parties are the same, and although all of them would like to be able to offer low taxes and high wages, the true loyalty to the country and it's people has faded and it's more about 'me' first, country second.

[tobyjugg2]

Sadly, that would seem to be exactly the case. Even more so with Labour than the Tories.

And utterly damning of the Labour party.

 

[unclebulgaria67]

It doesn't stand for anything any longer. Long gone are the days of 'are you with me brothers', it's more now about 'what would be popular to say to the public to get them to vote for me'.

 

I'm afraid all parties are the same, and although all of them would like to be able to offer low taxes and high wages, the true loyalty to the country and it's people has faded and it's more about 'me' first, country second.

 

The same in the US. A choice between Hillary Clinton and whoever the republicans nominate. Politicians are generally hated the world over, by most people.

 

Personally i would like to see an end to big political parties. I would like to see many more independent MP's, that vote on the merits of the case put to them. Also there is no reason why there cannot be online referendums on some issues.

 

I would scrap Westminster and that format of politics. I would replace with a modern parliament elsewhere, where they actually debate issues properly and not play games.

[unclebulgaria67]

Sadly, that would seem to be exactly the case. Even more so with Labour than the Tories.

And utterly damning of the Labour party.

 

 

The Tories are there to do what their vested interests tell them. Labour under Blair got far too close to vested interests and by-passed parliament with sofa government at no. 10.

 

Both Tories and Labour need to realise they are in government to serve the people who vote or who can vote.

[tobyjugg2]

Personally i would like to see an end to big political parties. I would like to see many more independent MP's, that vote on the merits of the case put to them. Also there is no reason why there cannot be online referendums on some issues.

 

I would scrap Westminster and that format of politics. I would replace with a modern parliament elsewhere, where they actually debate issues properly and not play games.

 

 

Seconded with utmost enthusiasm.