Politics, politics, politics

[the dza]

I love how Labour supporters still think Blair was THE PROBLEM. Something to be distanced from. He made them electable and won two terms in office. Neither Brown, nor Milliband did it. Brown stabbed Blair in the back and he was more old Labour. Red Ed was still further towards old Labour and his entire spiel was about kicking the rich and fighting for working people, but did even worse.

I can only speak as a left-wing voter rather than a Labour supporter (in 3 general elections now, I've twice voted for Lib Dems and once the Labour Party). I want proper, conviction politics of the left to vote for in a serious, national party (I don't really consider the Greens as a viable option at the moment - seem more of a middle-class sect than a serious party, but things could change). Now Labour might win elections more easily by going the Tory/Blair route, but we already have a Tory party to vote for. It don't think it's a good thing for democracy if Labour become solely concerned with winning elections by whoring themselves as Tories with red rosettes. Otherwise it doesn't really matter if the Tories win every single election, because there would be no big choice to make between the parties anyway. We should have a proper choice to make between the big parties, imo.

The Lib Dems tried to sell themselves as being bang in the centre for this election, look where that got them this time. People to the left (like me) abandoned them and people to the right went to the Tories (because why vote for an imitation when you can get the real thing?). Nobody believes in them anymore, it doesn't matter how sensible they want to sound.

The issue, as much as anything, is sincerity and conviction (IMHO). Hence the rise of the SNP and even the millions of votes for UKIP, when you consider where they were 5/10 years ago. There are many, many people who don't vote because they don't believe in anybody. I have to admit, this is the direction I am heading as a voter.

 

[glorygloryeze]

To me this election shows us how much deep-down much of the UK populace are Royalist and/or are used to being ruled by the Elite Establishment that are closely linked to the Royal Family. Remember that the Tories in principle seek to keep the established order (hence the title Conservative Party) and the Tories inherently will always seek to make sure that the Royal and Elite Establishments stay as such, regardless of whatever happens to the general populace (or the Hoi Polloi/Peasants as many of them would refer to it).

It was mostly those cut from this cloth that created and ran the British Empire/Commonwealth and it is these types who seek to take steps to bring about such a 'Golden Age' and make Britain 'Great' again, no doubt with all its inherent inequalities (Lords and Serfs, followed by New World slave trading followed by Child labourers in mines and factories etc); no doubt that is the reason why shows harking back to such Lord and Serf times such as Downton Abbey are actually so popular.
Most of the press and media outlets in this country reflect the views and concerns of the Tories and hence it is actually a miracle that Labour or any left-leaning party ever get elected.

There is a place for left-leaning (or actually just fair and meritocratic) politics in the UK. It just has to make that transition from being highly intellectual sociological theses that appeals to students "who want to make the world a better place" or urban middle-class types who often feel guilty about their wealth (perhaps when remembering their humble beginnings) and to the average joe whether in the shires or the urban council estate. Basically, there has to be a good message that is both detailed enough for the intellectuals and bitesize enough that even the Sun or the Mail can replay it to their readers. Yeah, we know these dailies would not likely even give a left-leaning message time of day, but if Blair could do it then it CAN be done imo.

 

[glorygloryeze]

Hmmm, what a boringly inaccurate statement. Living standards in this country have never been higher across the board.

Notsureifserious.....no doubt there are groups of the population that have had their living standards increase, but "across the board"?

I mean are you saying that the increased use of food banks in the country is simply a "Lifestyle choice" for some??

 

[Baleforce]

I can only speak as a left-wing voter rather than a Labour supporter (in 3 general elections now, I've twice voted for Lib Dems and once the Labour Party). I want proper, conviction politics of the left to vote for in a serious, national party (I don't really consider the Greens as a viable option at the moment - seem more of a middle-class sect than a serious party, but things could change). Now Labour might win elections more easily by going the Tory/Blair route, but we already have a Tory party to vote for. It don't think it's a good thing for democracy if Labour become solely concerned with winning elections by whoring themselves as Tories with red rosettes. Otherwise it doesn't really matter if the Tories win every single election, because there would be no big choice to make between the parties anyway. We should have a proper choice to make between the big parties, imo.

The Lib Dems tried to sell themselves as being bang in the centre for this election, look where that got them this time. People to the left (like me) abandoned them and people to the right went to the Tories (because why vote for an imitation when you can get the real thing?). Nobody believes in them anymore, it doesn't matter how sensible they want to sound.

The issue, as much as anything, is sincerity and conviction (IMHO). Hence the rise of the SNP and even the millions of votes for UKIP, when you consider where they were 5/10 years ago. There are many, many people who don't vote because they don't believe in anybody. I have to admit, this is the direction I am heading as a voter.

you are right, it should be there, and the country would be better for having that voice, history suggests it's a voice that finds it very difficult to get elected though

SNP aced it because they have a major populist issue to ride (2 actually if you count the spectre of independence), likewise UKIP, I'm not going to call them single issue parties but they are not far off, long term both of them will have very different futures and this years success is unlikely to be repeated

labour couldn't be that focused, they had to have an answer for everything as they were a viable ruling party, they lost because the other side tended to have better answers

 

[NWND]

Notsureifserious.....no doubt there are groups of the population that have had their living standards increase, but "across the board"?

I mean are you saying that the increased use of food banks in the country is simply a "Lifestyle choice" for some??

For fudge's sake. Food banks don't indicate an increase in needy people, it indicates an increase in compassion and prevention. People use food banks, before food banks, they'd be raiding bins. Living standards have never been higher than in the last decade. ACROSS THE BOARD.

 

[glorygloryeze]

For fudge's sake. Food banks don't indicate an increase in needy people, it indicates an increase in compassion and prevention. People use food banks, before food banks, they'd be raiding bins. Living standards have never been higher than in the last decade. ACROSS THE BOARD.

Ok, at least i now know you are not serious. There has been increased use of food banks. Food banks have needed to be created because the amount of people that would need them has been increasing and yes this has shown compassion, but let's not play silly statistics and say that their proliferation across many areas does not show that the number of people that are 'needy' has reached epic proportions in some areas. It's a humiliation for many who use them, and you use them if you are desperate. Also, many who do use them are IN WORK; so much for "much better living standards across the board"

Ok, tell me the source of this statement that "Living standards have never been higher then in the last decade"...which means of course the crash of the late naughties never happened...

 

[Baleforce]

knowledge of food banks has certainly increased

 

[monkeybarry]

If Labour need to do that, they may as well all cross the floor now and join the Tories. That was Thatcher's long term goal Not going to happen!

They need to adapt to the political world of now - not the 70s.
The mines don't exist anymore, their votership will now work in offices and shops, so having someone like Umunna would be very sensible.
He is smart, he is balanced, he is a good orator - has an excellent ability to sound sincere, authoritative and non patronising but also can things pretty straight. He also seems to steer clear of rhetoric pretty well.
Being of a different ethnic or social background to all other leaders since Thatcher will help to.

 

[monkeybarry]

Like I said, if the answer is Tory Lite, may as well give up and cross the floor enmass.

I'm pretty sure there was a post almost word for word just after the last election.
Extreme left doesn't seem to be on the radar in the UK - hadn't been since pre Thatcher
Tory lite would probably be quite appealing - appealing to the middle classes but with a bit of social conscience thrown in...... Like Blair, and he was quite popular. Would have a great legacy if 9/11 hadn't happened

 

[parklane1]

I love how Labour supporters still think Blair was THE PROBLEM. Something to be distanced from. He made them electable and won two terms in office. Neither Brown, nor Milliband did it. Brown stabbed Blair in the back and he was more old Labour. Red Ed was still further towards old Labour and his entire spiel was about kicking the rich and fighting for working people, but did even worse.

You are right he was not the problem and he did well in his first few years, however he lost it by getting into bed with that other warmonger Bush and took us into a illegal war on a lie. I know lots of people have never voted for Labour since and will not until all trace of those who backed him in that decision are no longer part of the party.

 

[Robspur12]

you are right, it should be there, and the country would be better for having that voice, history suggests it's a voice that finds it very difficult to get elected though

SNP aced it because they have a major populist issue to ride (2 actually if you count the spectre of independence), likewise UKIP, I'm not going to call them single issue parties but they are not far off, long term both of them will have very different futures and this years success is unlikely to be repeated

labour couldn't be that focused, they had to have an answer for everything as they were a viable ruling party, they lost because the other side tended to have better answers

I think the Tories won simply because they have a more credible leader. The Labour Party actually the unions. Failed to learn from recent history, first Foot then Kinnock, leaders who did not resonate with the country. Well that's because they were too left wing I hear people saying, but the Tories also had their problems with Hague then IDS. Remember them 2001 election where blair's labour trounced hague's conservatives despite the fuel crisis and foot and mouth? Tories won this time because in the end the British electorate rejected Ed Miliband. I think one needs to be careful before concluding that Labour lost this for simply being too left wing. They didn't and they were not which is why the SNP trounced them in Scotland. The deficit must continue to be cut and borrowing reduced, while public services not decimated, so Politicians should not be afraid of putting forward some tax rises to mitigate cuts.

 

[parklane1]

For fudge's sake. Food banks don't indicate an increase in needy people, it indicates an increase in compassion and prevention. People use food banks, before food banks, they'd be raiding bins. Living standards have never been higher than in the last decade. ACROSS THE BOARD.

That is probably the most stupid post in this thread.

 

[scaramanga]

Politicians should not be afraid of putting forward some tax rises to mitigate cuts.

That would make for a very short-lived political career.

 

[Robspur12]

You are right he was not the problem and he did well in his first few years, however he lost it by getting into bed with that other warmonger Bush and took us into a illegal war on a lie. I know lots of people have never voted for Labour since and will not until all trace of those who backed him in that decision are no longer part of the party.

Mate I am still a big fan of Tony Blair. Whatever Blair's role in removal of saddam 's regime I don't think it made much difference to the final outcome. The Americans were going to take out Saddam with or without the UK. Blair felt that it was in Britain's best interests were to be allied to the Americans. It was a tough call but that's why he was the PM. Blair is condemned for Iraq but the coalition have got off lightly IMO for the fiasco that was the removal of gaddaffi from Libya. Now that was championed by Cameron and Lib Dems and has created a dangerous power vacuum in the region. But that's ok because apparently that was legal stupidity.

 

[Robspur12]

That would make for a very short-lived political career.

Disagree. Remember when Blair took on the fuel protesters and won?

 

[parklane1]

Mate I am still a big fan of Tony Blair. Whatever Blair's role in removal of saddam 's regime I don't think it made much difference to the final outcome. The Americans were going to take out Saddam with or without the UK. Blair felt that it was in Britain's best interests were to be allied to the Americans. It was a tough call but that's why he was the PM. Blair is condemned for Iraq but the coalition have got off lightly IMO for the fiasco that was the removal of gaddaffi from Libya. Now that was championed by Cameron and Lib Dems and has created a dangerous power vacuum in the region. But that's ok because apparently that was legal stupidity.

As far as I ( and many others are concerned) a PM can make decisions on taxes, NHS, wefare etc and he is there to do that, does not matter if I like them or not the country vote in a PM to make those decisions. However I draw the line when he takes the country into a illegal war on a lie, causing many familys to lose loves ones and the fall out from that.

 

[Robspur12]

As far as I ( and many others are concerned) a PM can make decisions on taxes, NHS, wefare etc and he is there to do that, does not matter if I like them or not the country vote in a PM to make those decisions. However I draw the line when he takes the country into a illegal war on a lie, causing many familys to lose loves ones and the fall out from that.

I am not comfortable with the loss of Soldier's lives especially as my cousin is one, and that they were sent in based on an allegedly false premise feels really uncomfortable. But I genuinely believe Blair when he said that he was of the opinion that Saddam represented a serious threat. He would have been aware that he was taking a huge political risk but his call was what he thought served Britain's long term interests. He got it wrong but it's a shame that is what history will remember him for when he achieved so much more.

 

[Robspur12]

As far as I ( and many others are concerned) a PM can make decisions on taxes, NHS, wefare etc and he is there to do that, does not matter if I like them or not the country vote in a PM to make those decisions. However I draw the line when he takes the country into a illegal war on a lie, causing many familys to lose loves ones and the fall out from that.

Also our intervention in Libya has done nothing IMO to serve our long term interest and in providing fertile ground for the expansion of the jihadists has in fact placed our citizens in greater danger.

 

[parklane1]

I am not comfortable with the loss of Soldier's lives especially as my cousin is one, and that they were sent in based on an allegedly false premise feels really uncomfortable. But I genuinely believe Blair when he said that he was of the opinion that Saddam represented a serious threat. He would have been aware that he was taking a huge political risk but his call was what he thought served Britain's long term interests. He got it wrong but it's a shame that is what history will remember him for when he achieved so much more.

Do not get me wrong Blair did a lot of good after the Torys years, however he lied about the reason he took us into war and joined the other warmonger Bush in doing so. As for lives lost a guy I played football with for years and also worked with lost his son, he is a shell now and Blair and Bush have blood on their hands.

Not only did itcost the lives of thousands it also led to the country spending billions on what was a illegal war based on a lie.

 

[parklane1]

Also our intervention in Libya has done nothing IMO to serve our long term interest and in providing fertile ground for the expansion of the jihadists has in fact placed our citizens in greater danger.

Would not disagree over that at all, I have said many times he amount of money we spend going to war and the foreign aid budget is one of the main reasons we are so much in debt.