Professor Yaffle
Butterbeans and Breadcrumbs
Dan Jarvis has ruled himself out.
Next Labour Leader
- Thread starter Undesired Walrus
- Start date
NWO Sentryman
Proud NWO Gatekeeper
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2009
- Messages
- 6,994
Damn shame, otherwise 2020 would have been much easier for Labour.
The battle starts for the Titanic's next Captain.
angrysoba
Philosophile
Chuka has put himself forward as a candidate for next Labour loser...er...leader.
Rincewind
Philosopher
Maybe they should think out of the box?
How about Jeremy Clarkson, now he's got more free time?
OK - I'll get my coat...
How about Jeremy Clarkson, now he's got more free time?
OK - I'll get my coat...
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
Are Britons ready to elect a black man with a funny foreign-sounding name as the leader of the country? And has anyone seen his birth certificate?
angrysoba
Philosophile
Are Britons ready to elect a black man with a funny foreign-sounding name as the leader of the country? And has anyone seen his birth certificate?
I don't see why not we've had plenty of leaders with funny foreign names in our history. I think the biggest handicap for him will be being tied to a party lacking in ideas.
ohms
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2005
- Messages
- 1,709
He will be more popular than Ed Miliband with business owners but I'm not so sure how well he will go down with the trade unions and the core Labour voters.
.......who have just very decisively been shown to be incapable of delivering an election victory. Blair showed what needs to be done in terms of appealing beyond lower income groups.
Yes. As long as it goes without saying that the purpose of the Labour Party is simply to win elections, not pursue any particular policies, or serve the interests of any particular sector of society.
Blair indeed showed that. He won elections. He did what needed to be done. End of story.
It's not the "lower income groups" who control society, so appealing go them doesn't win elections. That is very true. And now Blair personally is not in the "lower income" bracket. That is also true.
Last edited:
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 12, 2010
- Messages
- 21,162
It's not a crime for political parties to change in order to reflect the requirements and will of the population, you know. In fact, it's an important element of democracy.
In the car industry, how would (say) Ford be doing commercially if it was still trying to sell the 1980 variant of Fiesta or Sierra into today's market?
Indeed, if political parties don't change and adapt to suit current needs, aspirations and social mores, then this soon creates fundamental problems to the proper operation of democracy. After all, if the Labour party of 2015 were campaigning on the same overarching political principles as it did in (say) 1982, it would be pretty much guaranteed never to gain a parliamentary majority. Likewise the SNP. The only reason why the Conservative party has changed by relatively much less than the left-wing parties over the same period (though it has changed nonetheless) is that the public have seen liberal capitalism in action and a lot of them seem to quite like it.
Do they indeed? That would be the credit bubble, the wild shenanigans perpetrated by the banks under the benign gaze of Chancellor Brown? The collapse, panic runs on banks like nothing seen since the eighteen seventies; the Austerity that has followed? Yes, liberal capitalism has been showing itself off to good advantage recently. Or not.
And adapting to suit current needs, aspirations and social mores. Is that a veiled reference to the Iraq War? Did Blair indulge in that because the voters demanded it, or because he heard "Yo, Blair!" from his master, like the little dog in the HMV logo?
angrysoba
Philosophile
I think there is a good case to be made for Labour becoming more left wing, which is what the party is supposed to represent, after all. Under Blair, Labour became like the proverbial bank robber asked why he robs banks and answering that that's where the money is. But it is as though the Greens were to ditch environmental policies to appeal to polluters or if the SNP ran in England on policies similar to UKIP. It might be where a lot of votes are but it is not what the party's supposed to represent.
So, you want the Labour party to go more left wing, ensuring that it stays out of power longer, and thereby giving less and less voice to the left wing in British society. That's a very odd plan. Do you remember Michael Foot? He tried that....
Francesca R
Girl
Yes the purpose of Labour is to win elections or participate in coalitions that win elections (which the public seems to have recoiled from). At least two parties have to have that objective IMO.
angrysoba
Philosophile
It needs to have a core identity. What kept 35% of the electorate away from the polls? I don't personally know, but Labour ought to find out.
It would seem likely that the left do better when more people vote.
So going more left wing gives less power to the left in society. Hey, does sliding to the right give less power to the Right Wing? In that case the financial interests must have been disquieted by the unexpected Tory victory, and shares fell?
If not, then you have a formula for us.
To help the Left go Right.
To help the Right, go Right.
It has the merit of simplicity, at all events. Well done!
I'm beginning to wonder if anything you write is ever serious, Craig. To some it might appear that your only interest is to have a silly argument as often as you can.
Please let me know when I'm patronising you, but I'm going to spell this out really, really simply in short words:
If Labour goes left it will not get elected. If it doesn't get elected, the left in Britain will be less well represented in our national discourse.
Following so far?
So, if Labour wants to represent the left effectively, they also have to appeal to left leaning centrists, otherwise they (Labour) will remain permanently in opposition. Labour being permanently in opposition does no-one any good, and would make for poor governance of this country.
Similarly, on the other wing of UK politics, the Right. If the Conservatives move too far to the right, they will be unelectable (presuming this doesn't happen at the same time as Labour are hard left). If the Conservatives sit on the opposition benches for too long as a result, those with a right wing agenda in this country will similarly be frustrated by their lack of representation or power. Therefore, if the hard right want adequate representation in government, they have to accept that the Conservatives should be a centre right, rather than a hard right party.
Relative extremism on either wing results in time out of power, to the detriment of the very people who are most closely associated with the more extreme views. Is that clear now?