Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

PropertyGuru

Ed Milliballs

Recommended Posts

My guess is that they are now irrelevant. The Labour party in opposition will bumble along for a while and then then 'progressive forces' will reject Blairism and New Labour.

If Clegg reins in the wilder Lib-Dems in order to get 5 solid years of power sharing under their belt, the Lib Dems will be making all the running on the left wing.

This will worry the Labour Party, who will have to cast about as they did pre Blair, to find a credible and winning formula.

Watch out for Clegg making overtures to certain Labour MPs with a view to them becoming Lib Dem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cruddas is out unfortunately. The usual irony applies; he states he lacks the personal qualities to be a party leader. At which point it is clear he has all the personal qualities you could ever wish for in a party leader. I saw Ed's speech on the TV, he gets it I think. You have to compare this with the sort of speeches Hague and IDS gave for years before you conclude there is nothing noteworthy in this. I also think the idea they are irrelevant is wrong and really marks wishful thinking from some. Further, it would be a bad thing if they were, we've seen where having an opposition that doesn't bother turning up gets us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is quite likely that by the time Labour gets anywhere near power again both the Millis and the Balls are long past it politicaly.

It seems like that now, but then it would. Check back in five years eh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems like that now, but then it would. Check back in five years eh.

I don't think so actually. At least not necessarily.

I think that, if Labour make, or are perceived to make, real changes to the party, whomever is seen to execute those changes or at least champion them, could ensure the party remains extremely relevant, even if that is just in opposition. If they don't they could drift in to irrelevance in the mind of the Public for quite some time, which would inevitably lead to internal Party issues and a transitory leadership.

One of the problems, I think, Labour has is that it is probably the party that is most closely scrutinized on policy and ideology by the Public and many of the things that are at the core of Labour are unpalatable, even offensive to many. As an example their relationships with the Unions is something of a noose around their necks. They in some respects live and die by their Union relationship, but will find it difficult to be seen to make real changes if they don't address it to some extent. The same with their stance on welfare etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think so actually. At least not necessarily.

I think that, if Labour make, or are perceived to make, real changes to the party, whomever is seen to execute those changes or at least champion them, could ensure the party remains extremely relevant, even if that is just in opposition. If they don't they could drift in to irrelevance in the mind of the Public for quite some time, which would inevitably lead to internal Party issues and a transitory leadership.

One of the problems, I think, Labour has is that it is probably the party that is most closely scrutinized on policy and ideology by the Public and many of the things that are at the core of Labour are unpalatable, even offensive to many. As an example their relationships with the Unions is something of a noose around their necks. They in some respects live and die by their Union relationship, but will find it difficult to be seen to make real changes if they don't address it to some extent. The same with their stance on welfare etc.

Thats reasonable, but I think they do understand that, its pretty clear. In EM's speech he talked about them becoming fearful technocrats which is what I think was really the problem and its largely a result of being in power for too long. Because HPC is a bit childish, many of the excesses are blamed on their alleged ideological agenda but the truth is that they ceased to be ideologically motivated sometime early in Blair's second term. After that it was just keeping on going and they were running scared of the right-wing press for most of it. You reach a point where you really need to disown half the things you did but its very hard to do that. Tax credits for example got way out of hand, but removing them ceased to be an option as well. When people write the history of the party in this period, Gordon Brown's own personal decline will really sum up the whole party. Happy, agitated and frustrated, angry and then eventually exhausted. It wasn't just him personally that went through the same progression.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Further, it would be a bad thing if they were, we've seen where having an opposition that doesn't bother turning up gets us.

Agreed, though it might not be quite the same under a coalition! The real opposition to Thatcher was, after all, Heath!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think so actually. At least not necessarily.

I think that, if Labour make, or are perceived to make, real changes to the party, whomever is seen to execute those changes or at least champion them, could ensure the party remains extremely relevant, even if that is just in opposition. If they don't they could drift in to irrelevance in the mind of the Public for quite some time, which would inevitably lead to internal Party issues and a transitory leadership.

One of the problems, I think, Labour has is that it is probably the party that is most closely scrutinized on policy and ideology by the Public and many of the things that are at the core of Labour are unpalatable, even offensive to many. As an example their relationships with the Unions is something of a noose around their necks. They in some respects live and die by their Union relationship, but will find it difficult to be seen to make real changes if they don't address it to some extent. The same with their stance on welfare etc.

This is hitting at the root of Labour's problems. They have a large core of voters who always vote Labour regardless but are insufficient in numbers to guarantee victory. Labour will always have to cast about for policies that will attract floating voters. Now they will have to keep a close eye on the Lib Dems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is hitting at the root of Labour's problems. They have a large core of voters who always vote Labour regardless but are insufficient in numbers to guarantee victory. Labour will always have to cast about for policies that will attract floating voters. Now they will have to keep a close eye on the Lib Dems.

That isn't where the focus is from any of the candidates so far though. Rebuilding doesn't start with floating voters after all. They aren't going to fight the next election next week. What you may not appreciate is how far the party in government moved away from the party in the country, it was the long-term cause of quite a lot going wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That isn't where the focus is from any of the candidates so far though. Rebuilding doesn't start with floating voters after all. They aren't going to fight the next election next week. What you may not appreciate is how far the party in government moved away from the party in the country, it was the long-term cause of quite a lot going wrong.

I suspected that. Time and time again people were saying that they were not listened to. Immigration was a real problem but the Government seemed latched to an idealogical position that did not reflect that of its core voters. That is why the BNP made gains.

The 'Bigot' comment sealed the matter. I think Brown really meant it and you have to ask how did he get so far away from a Northern Charity working, 'voted Labour all my life' Grandma.

Was Brown truly Labour, or was he some sort of reconstructed marxist?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspected that. Time and time again people were saying that they were not listened to. Immigration was a real problem but the Government seemed latched to an idealogical position that did not reflect that of its core voters. That is why the BNP made gains.

The 'Bigot' comment sealed the matter. I think Brown really meant it and you have to ask how did he get so far away from a Northern Charity working, 'voted Labour all my life' Grandma.

Was Brown truly Labour, or was he some sort of reconstructed marxist?

Well, thats what both Eds have talked about. Disconnection, immigration, globalisation and benefits. Interestingly it isn't in his article for the Guardian but it was in EM's speech; he said that contribution needed to be taken into account as much as need. He also said, and this was the big deal internally, that he thought being a member of a political party should be about more than being told to deliver leaflets (thats Blair 1997 total control for you). Again, its yesterday's problem solution leading to today's ****-up. Brown I think was a manager, "of the party" but not much else. Its why he wanted to move out of the treasury in truth (he said to cries of "Brown was a powermad dictator" driven only by mania). Unfortunately when got to power there was nothing for him to do but do more managing because the climate had changed. Hence the rage of a deeply disappointed man who got all he thought he wanted and couldn't' do anything with it.

Edit: On the "who is Gordon Brown" side you have to remember that Labour is different from other left wing parties in Europe and other places. Its built on the labour movement which isn't quite the same as saying it is built on socialism which it precedes in fact. Further, chapel has always been important traditionally, hence all that "son of the manse" business, they never did the opium of the people routine. Brown was more in that line actually, I'd be surprised if he had a great deal of time for Marx in the sense of being a "marxist" actually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Events are key. The unexpected will happen and that is the real test of Government. Can the Coalition hold?

The Tory Right has to find out how weak or strong it is to see where its future lies.

Labour has to develop an intellectual basis for its development, it is the way it works.

So while Parliament gives itself a long holiday and we get into the Conference season, there is a lot of positioning to go on.

September and October will be when we can test the longevity of this Government and how strong the challenge to it will be.

Meanwhile, do not despair, Labour will be back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest DestroyBrown

Events are key. The unexpected will happen and that is the real test of Government. Can the Coalition hold?

The Tory Right has to find out how weak or strong it is to see where its future lies.

Labour has to develop an intellectual basis for its development, it is the way it works.

So while Parliament gives itself a long holiday and we get into the Conference season, there is a lot of positioning to go on.

September and October will be when we can test the longevity of this Government and how strong the challenge to it will be.

Meanwhile, do not despair, Labour will be back.

The core philosophy of Labour is fundamentally flawed, whoever fronts the party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 259 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.