The Labour movement column
By Anthony Painter / @anthonypainter
And so here we are. What a strange Parliament it has been. 2005 seems a world away. These will be remembered as the credit crunch years. It will be remembered for the nadir of expenses corruption that gripped the nation’s legislature. But that is for the historians. For after almost four and half years, the election starts now.
Next Tuesday, Gordon Brown will have to deliver the speech of his life. Nothing short of that will do anything to restore Labour’s fortunes. It is easily forgotten that he came up with the line of the conference season last: it was "no time for a novice". But it hasn’t stuck.
A year later and the country seems absolutely willing to consider passing the keys of the kingdom to a novice. Not only that, but to a novice that has shown himself incapable of getting any of the big calls right.
To return to a theme that I have touched upon before, the election of a Conservative government risks economic disaster. Don’t take my word for it. Take the word of Lord Skidelsky. He put the argument with pithy disdain in The Telegraph a few days ago:
“Almost all that Osborne said is right and sensible in conditions of full employment; most of it is wrong and wrong-headed when there is heavy and persisting unemployment. Although he understands that we have been in the deepest recession since the war, his strategy for recovery assumes that there is nothing to recover from – except a Labour government!”
But nobody is listening. Instead, the cuts bandwagon gathers momentum. Sirens in reverse - those who warn passing ships away from the rocks - are ignored, and instead we obsess about the fiscal deficit. To add the necessary caveat here, by no means do I wish to suggest that when normal times return serious fiscal retrenchment will not be necessary. Put simply though, we are not in normal times.
So when Vince Cable makes an excellent contribution to the discussion about how to close the deficit and reduce national debt, he fails to add an equally necessary caveat - ‘when the time comes’ - in any meaningful sense. So he describes as a ‘fiscal crisis’ what I hope he knows is actually an economic crisis with very serious fiscal consequences. The nuances are important.
My concern with the cuts dynamic is not partisan. My concern is substantive. If it gathers an unstoppable momentum - as it may already have done - the political driver will be towards bad economic policy.
For all of this, any alternative message has just not got through. The reason? The public are not receptive to it.
Nor will they be receptive to the ‘global influence’ narrative. The time to make this case was after the G20 Summit but very quickly there were distractions - smear emails and the like. If Gordon Brown’s speech next week is just a litany of ‘big decisions’ made at big international conferences then that also will be water of the duck’s back for the electorate.
Nick Clegg chose to use his platform this week to indulge in a series of tactical manoeuvrings that started off with the bizarre and has continued on to the perverse. On Saturday, he opposed holding a referendum on electoral reform on the basis that, “Anything Gordon Brown proposes now will turn to dust.” So who’s going to do it for you, Nick? David Cameron? Because, in case you haven’t noticed, you haven’t got the parliamentary votes. You are the third party.
He then proceeded to characterise a vote for the Green party as a wasted vote. Things have got a bit silly in Bournemouth - and just for or a change it wasn’t the delegates who were culpable. It was the party leader. It wouldn’t have happened in Ming’s day.
David Cameron has the easiest job in the world. He could read his conference the entire works of Marcel Proust and the media would characterise it as charismatic and visionary. They will marvel at the sight of a bipedal standing without support. He could bounce on one foot while singing the frog song and it would excite comparison with the best of The X-Factor compared with Strictly’s finest moments. You get the picture.
But Gordon Brown has to reach a whole new level. Perhaps there were hints of what he could do at the TED conference - but a one liner won’t be enough this time; a rabble-rouser will hit the wrong note; an aloof statesman act will fly invisibly above the clouds - he has to do something more.
He has to convince that he has the ideas, and determination to continue. He doesn’t want to win just in order not to lose. He has to have a notion that connects his personal philosophy with a better Britain. He has to acknowledge mistakes, ditch the political baggage, and free himself for the good fight. He has to speak to the nation and say we’re better than to give up in an economic storm, things aren’t so bad that we have to turn to the first travelling salesman who passes through town, the years ahead are tough - and when things are tough you see the best in us.
And now is not the time to give up on social justice. Now is the time to advance it: less inequality, less environmental destruction, greater opportunity for all, a world united in facing up to its enormous collective problems, and a politics that is more open, democratic, and involving. If there is one lesson from financial calamity, it is that we must build a different way of doing things.
Perhaps we were complacent in the good times. It would be amazing if in twelve years of government mistakes weren’t made and we didn’t have regrets. But we did make this country a better, fairer, place with greater opportunity. We could and should have done much more. But that is not reason enough to give in.
If Gordon Brown mixes this humility with determination, optimism with honesty, and speaks to the nation on its terms, then he can begin to shift the political mood. If he ditches tactical manoeuvring and instead presents a vision of a different Britain that can inspire then just maybe David Cameron will be begin to lose his lustre.
That is the challenge. Over to you, Prime Minister.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
All contributors to this board literally have tools at their disposal of historic significance. We CAN make a difference and have a responsibility to do so. There is no sense in which government should still be dominating public discussion or running people's lives. Who here believes that someone in government possesses wisdom or virtue in excess of anything found outside Parliament? The old days when they held all the power have been terminated by the internet. The information and the means are there for individuals to make the world a better place. So this should be Labour's next agenda. The potent ideas behind the technologies transforming society today shouldn't be appended to the Tories, a party with aristocratic origins that is fundamentally hostile to change. The conservatives of today support the bloated Quango State, public expenditure at 45 per cent GDP etc. As far as I know, the radical ideas are the only way forward and they deserve to belong to the Labour party because the alleviation of poverty, equality of opportunity and democratic freedom are all achievable if we can get government out the way.
If that all sounds a bit radical for the Labour party, consider nationalising Vodafone, Orange, Virgin Broadband etc. simply out of political principle. Almost no one in the party believes that any more. And nor should they be shamed into doing so. Just because that seemed the right way forward to previous generations, doesn't mean we have to be stuck implacably to nationalisation today. The goals are what Labour has always got right: democratic freedom, equality and fairness. The means are finally there for the taking. Let's not get stuck in 20th Century dogma.
Are you sugesting a "no platform " policy ? It worked with the bnp ?
ricki
I stand by my view that this site would be better if, like ConservativeHome, participation is dominated by those intrinsically sympathetic, though not necessarily uncritical of, the Labour party and left-of-centre views. There are plenty of places where left and right can fight - there should be room for something different.
What has taken place in both parties is convergence so that they have become far less distinctive and have veered towards the centre. This is the result of having to appeal to a majority of voters - so you get compromise and consensus within the parties rather than between parties.
I think the latter gives more real choice rather than one vaguely leftish bloc opposing one vaguely rightish bloc
Calm down , we should debate with torys / lib dem/ even the bnp , at the end of the day i think all parties want the same but have a different idea on how to get there .
Putting our heads in the sand wont work .
ricki
In my view, this would be a better site if it was more controlled - as is ConservativeHome. This shouldn't be, in my view, a place for left-right debate, but a space where those sympathetic to left of centre views can discuss issues from within that understanding
It depends what you mean by 'constructive'. I can't see what's constructive about criticising Labour from a perspective which would clearly never be part of Labour thinking. You don't want Labour to succeed, so how can your advice be viewed as constructive? Plenty of Labour supporters think the party might be better led by another, but that's not something that I'd want to discuss with someone hostile to the Labour party, no matter who leads it.
It's their '15 minutes of fame' - or the equivalent in blogosphere. Maybe they are all people who applied for a job on the Daily Mail, and did not succeed.
I have difficulty in understanding their motivation - they're not going to persuade me, you and a good few other like-minded folk who appear here on 'our' site to change our minds or outlook on matters political.
It's not as if there is a great deal of original thinking from the trolls - most of what they say is straight from Simon Heffer and Ben Benedict.
Still .... 'it takes all sorts'
1. no one else good enough?
or
2. Gordon would destroy anyone else standing using lies and smears?
either way it only highlights why Nu Labour will be decimated next May. Gordon Brown is only being kept in place so the Lisbon Treaty can be ratified.
Mendleson knows as as once as the treaty is signed, we the British Public will no longer have any control over our Armed Forces, Work regulations, Tax Policy,Union Policy,Green Policy,Immigration to mention but a few. He will then be able to lord it over us with his mate Bliar as EU President. All the Labour Party stands for now is the destruction of our Country and to become a group of disparate Regions within the EU.
As once as we have all of our Powers taken away the EU Nations will put the boot in and pay us back for the last 1000 years.
For this Labour will never be forgiven, remember the only reason the Liberals are still lower in the polls than Labour is because of thier craven love of the EU. When the UK Public finally wake up to this Labour will take the blame and will never be elected again. At the same time the last of your support will go to the BNP or UKIP.
You all know this, so why not grow some balls and do the following...
1. replace Brown but not with Mendleson,Balls,Harman,Milliband bros,Straw as they are all hated as well. Johnson is the best you have as he actually comes across as human.
2. Scrap ID Cards
3.Actually take some legal action against all of the thieves on the Labour Benches and prove you have some decent people in the wings.
4.Pull out of Afghanistan
5.Start punishing the Banks
6.Call a referendum now
If you do these things you may actually achieve a hung Parliament and will still be able to wield some power.
If you don't R.I.P Labour
as to saying that nothing constructive is ever said by those with right-of-centre views, rubbish. there are plenty of tory 'interlopers' (as you would have them) who add a big dollop of common sense into the mix here. like ditch your leader, he's killing you, for instance. though why we should help lift the scales from your collective eyes god only knows. maybe because it's fun to watch the knots of denial you all regularly tie yourselves in.
good luck with your party conference by the way.
All this current talk of "national government" is absolute rubbish.
The Left and Right have clear and unbridgeable differences on how the country should be governed, therefore political ideological conflict (it doesn't have to be vicious mind, reasoned ideologocal debate is better) is a natural state of affairs. Compromise, consensus, alliance and coalition is not the natural state of affairs and is actually the reason why I'm 100% opposed to PR.
I was of the view that I could never vote for a left of centre party though. Now upon reflection there is one reason why I could vote Labour or (more likely) Liberal and that is if a Tory government was threatening the freedoms and liberties of my country.
That it would be the only reason I could see myself voting for the left should indicate my absolute disgust at what Labour has done in 12 years to the historic freedoms the UK had when they took office.
Now I've never backed down from a fight (especially political) in my life. But when pushed into a position where attacks on me are accepted but responses not then I see little point to it.
The final straw really was Jukes continuing to misrepresent me on the BNP/Islam thing and yet it being impossible for me to respond.
Anyway we'll see how things go.
RE: Staffordshire. Probably that nasty Penda guy nicking all he could grab off us defenceless Eastern Angles. He did for at least one of our kings.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/staffordshire/8272058.stm
Just leave the polemic out of it - as we all should - and discuss the issues from your own perspective (which we will take as a given), and in particular, in the light of your practical experience, which is clearly valuable.
I'm sure you'll say it'll never happen again though!
I'm glad you came back. Personally I like how you see politics as conflicts where decisions have to be taken rather than a process of trying to manufacture bogus consensus.
Alex, should collate some of this stuff into a Christmas best of collection. Or given current circumstances, a Halloween Special.
I've only ever voted Tory or abstained and I'm fairly sure that I'll only ever vote Tory or abstain going forward.
From the core voet I'd say there's a good 30% plus of voters who are just like me, so "tribalism" as you call it remains. If you hold right of centre views why on earth would you vote anything other than for the Tory party?
I don't post on this site to wind-up Labour supporters (BTW you do a nice line in rhetoric yourself). I post here in the slight hope that either Brown, Balls, or those close to them, monitor this site and might, just might read my stuff.
I don't expect for one micro-second anything I say will get through their thick skulls. But if one, just one thing I write they they read makes a subliminal impression on them and pops into their consciousness at 3am I will be happy.
It's the internet. It gives me a voice. However small. Something you overlook with your "it's our ball and you can't play" mentality.
One more thing .... go to "wiki" and look up the definition of 'troll'.
Yesterday we steamed past an iceberg with a penguin perched on top, and several people fell over as the ship did a rapid about turn. Now the passengers want a new crew flown out, on the maybe not logical assumption that they must be better than this lot.
A small section of the original crew have stood up and blurted out that they really do know the way, and we should trust them with the helm and will be saved.
Asked why they didn't speak up before they could only reply that their duty was to the captain who paid their wages and not to the passengers whose funds made the voyage possible.
Just accept that you are all part of the crew.
The passengers just want to get home safely.
As I said I'm a floating voter. These days we have no need to follow a political brand - in fact its dangerous to do so imo. Idealogically neither Labour or the Tories reflect my views although if you map my politics I'm left leaning.
So my preference is that Labour would be centre left due to inherent founding principles but to throw your toys out of the pram because this time round the centre has been taken by the Tories is just pathetic and will do nothing for Labours recovery.
Lets have an OP piece up on "where to now" - Labour are at a cross roads - swing to the left and become unelectable or try and recover and LEARN from the mistakes of the last decade.
Blind allegiance to a brand, and that is all "Labour", is what is hurting centre left politics. Don't you get this basic? What is the point in trying to ignore the elephant in the room? Labour doesn't represent the centre left anymore. I fail to see how a Labour member in the 80's would support this monster that we see today.
Enough of the spin and BS about the Tories. They are organised, clearly defined and motivated. Labour isn't.
Now - Labour WILL lose the next election and they deserve to. I just wish that LabourList and the few like you on here can start discussing what Labour should be and how it will revive itself. THATS much more important that pretending Labour either will or deserves to win the next election because Peter Kilfoyle was talking bollocks.
I stand corrected. There was indeed no such thing as "Blair's manifesto". You are absolutely right when you say that that manifesto was that of the Labour party. So please explain to me what right did Gordon Brown have to throw parts of that manifesto out of the window when he took over? Labour weren't elected to implement Gordon Brown's new "vision", were they? That is why people said that he didn't have a mandate. If he was so intent on pursuing those new policies, he should have gone to the electorate.
As for the public, the dominant theme I hear is they're all as bad as each other. This plays into Conservative hands because it leads easily to an argument that they just a necessary evil - and therefore should have as smal a role in our lives as possible.
There needs to be legal change if an election is required after a change of PM because of resignation of a party leader. I would oppose it because I don't believe in the cult of personality, even though unfortunately things are heading that way with only sparkly media-friendly 'communicators' likely to become leader of any party in the future. Clement Attlee was an excellent PM and yet was known to be abrupt and taciturn in the extreme
Except...
1. When Major became leader of the Conservatives, he was ELECTED by his party. That of course didn't happen in Gordon's case.
2. When Gordon took over leadership he stated quite unambiguously that he had a new list of priorities and objectives. No consideration was given to the fact that the electorate might not approve those objectives. The electorate voted for Blair's manifesto. Not Gordon's. That is why people were asking for an election.
In other words, I think this site would work better if it was explicitly a space where those who want to see a Labour/left-of-centre/social democratic Britain can discuss politics. Those with alternate political ideals can surely find another home?
For perhaps there should be specific threads where its open season, meaning that the bulk of threads can be devoted to Labour-leaning people discussing the issues with others who have the same essential aim (which doesn't include any sort of enthusiasm for the Tories as opposed to Labour in government...I may dislike much of what Labour does, but as Peter Kilfoyle once said to me - and no friend of NL he - the worst Labour government is preferable to the best Tory one)
Makes it rather difficult. Especially as apart from Ralph, most of the rational comment appears to come from lapsed members.
Give it a while and people will be queuing up here to slag off PM Cameron with much more gusto.
I did a quick count of how many "Contributors" are happy to have their mugshot listed over to the left. I stopped counting at 100. So just where are all these Labour-minded people when it comes to positively debating the Government's record? Or are they just as sick of Gordon as the so-called Tory trolls on here? After all this is pretty much the only Labour blog in town.
PS. I'm not a Tory troll, just a life-long Labour voter who feels sick watching GB actively destroy the Labour Party.
I agree with much of what you have to say (point five is absolutely dead-on target), but I am cautious about the way you conflate socialism with Communism with the above comment. They are certainly related, but not the same thing.
The fall of the Iron Curtain discredited Communism, certainly. Not so sure about socialism (though this does open up the door for the kind of esoteric and doctrinaire ramblings about what it means to be a socialist that have pervaded leftist thinking for so long...).
Still, I like what you have to say.
Not self-confessed, Mike, merely labelled "Tories" by you (incorrectly in the cases of Billy Blofeld and john doe who have both denied it).
As for certain viewpoints having no place on this site, perhaps you and Anthony Painter would like to clarify which viewpoints are acceptable? Perhaps only those judged sufficiently left-of-centre (by the two of you) should be allowed to contribute to LabourList?
I think the mistake is to assume that New Labour is part of some sort of continuum with this view. It isn't. Many of us who had always considered ourselves to be on the moderate right of the party suddenly found that former lefties were leapfrogging us and our moderate social democracy was left wing! So, it was by no means a fight purely with the Left, but also with the majority of ordinary Labour-minded people. This explains the huge decrease in party membership. I speak as one of those who left.
The commitment of the social democratic tradition to the European vision is strong and enduring - if only the rhetoric of new labour had been matched with the reality! Some of the issues you mention were valid. Public services did need a boost, but the obsession with 'choice' and the involvement of the private sector meant that many resources were wasted, PFI being an obvious example.
I tend to agree that the Blairite/Brownite divide is artificial and personality based, but I think it is the outcome of a long period of government as much as anything else. Its easy to forget that most of the public services reforms of the Tories took place under the 'moderate' major, not under Thatcher, and whilst the Europe issue became something of an obsession, politics in general is becoming more personality-orientated. I do think that NL have not helped that trend but then Cameron is simply extending and adapting it.
It could be argued that Labour more effectively silenced its left wing than the Tories their right wing. But both still exist, and I would certainly think that opposition will bring some realignment and reconsideration of priorities. As for the Tories, there are all sorts of divides, both political and personal, and whilst these may be temporarily hidden if they are in government, there is a surprising amount of synergy between the NL operation and the cabal around Cameron.
I think it's pathetic that this mildly insulting remark is all you have to offer in response to 55 Comments about YOUR article. If you can't cope with dissent you'd be better to avoid posting articles online, it reflects poorly on you.
I heard Caroline Lucas on Radio Five yesterday: very impressive. I'm seriously thinking about joining the Green's. It seems to be the only credible socialist party at the moment.
They hate Gordon but have yet to learn to love Dave.
It seems amazing that for a guy they think is so hopeless that Gordon Brown is able excite Tories in a way that David Cameron seems utterly incapable. What are they concerned about?
2. Only meaningless to those that don't like to tell the truth.
3. So many mistakes to choose from.
4. You may not think its happening, but far too many would disagree with you.
5. Twice had to resign, but understandable you say that considering your answer to 2.
6. Fine withdraw them, but until you do, support them with appropriate backup.
7. Too many lives have been lost because of this war. The difference it would make is to hold those responsible to acount.
8. I agree with you here, but make an exception when a referendum is promised in an election manifesto. If you don't want to hold a referendum, then don't promise one.
9. Agree
10. The sooner an election, comes the better. I hope you do vote Green. The less votes Labour gets, the more catastrophic the defeat.
Unless GB has asked you to write his speech, and got that nice guy from the White House to deliver it, it ain't goin' to happen.
I think there's nothing I can do to expand on his stage presence and delivery that hasn't already appeared in this set of comments apart from; flap, flap, oink, oink.
I have to admit I thought he would make a suitable replacement for Tony, but he has successively turned that stock of good will into utter contempt. Starting with bullying the PLP to choose him as leader unopposed, just so the membership couldn't voice an opinion. He doesn't want to know what anyone else thinks.
He gives the impression that he would dither deciding the answer to the question; Do you want sugar with that?
When he's had no time to think and had to react and decide something quickly it worked in coming up with a plan to deal with the aftermath of the Lehman Brothers collapse, but give him any time to think and he relapses into analysis paralysis.
The Wisest Fool in Christendom?
I really do worry what comes next if the New Labour sect isn't crushed and Labour spends the next decade being headed by unelectable MilliBalls clones.
After that was the boom years and at the time I strongly disagreed with selling the gold off cheap and a number of Brown initiatives that loosened the controls on banks.However as with any floating voter we choose the least worse option. Cn you imagine a Tory government after Labours first or even second term?
Obviously we had other decisions that I was totally opposed to - ID Cards, Iraq war etc etc. In the end I just didnt like any party. So I continued voting for my local Labour councillors (borough and county) and in the last GE abstained. I just didnt think Blair would hang around for a full term as he promised and frankly I was glad to see the back of the war criminal. At the same time I didnt want Howard to win.
And so it came to be. I had never bought into Brown as the prudent or iron chancellor. He was far too flawed but with Blair at least you had someone packaged who showed some conviction even when he was wrong.
So Brown got anointed and my god what a disaster its been. A week is a long time in politics and 5 years is an eternity when you have possibly the worst PM since the war. All his flaws are now writ large. I'm glad I never voted at the last election. And since Brown gained power I have become to slowly hate Labour. I hate its spineless backbench. I hate its below average front bench. I hate the lies, spin and general bullshit. Its such a massive turnoff. I hate the intrusion and the nanny state. I hate that Brown created a financial monster and then blamed everyone else when it turned to crap. I dont like the fact that he has let a massive ponzi scheme to happen at the expense of the taxpayer. I hate the fact that no matter what a MP does wrong it no longer leads to resignation. I suppose I've woken up to what I was actually voting for.
As regards Osborne - I don't like him much but the Tories are in a better position to lead than Labour. Its really simple - in 2006 Brown borrowed billions despite record tax receipts. Dont quote Keynsian economics during the bad times if you don't follow it in the good.
My local Labour group has disintegrated - some life long members absolutely hate what Labour has begun. I agree with them. Labour takes the worst bits of socialism and thatcherism and fudges them together. I fail to understand how any life long Labour supporter can support or vote for this shower. They don't stand for anything to do with Labour no matter what the weasel words.
I agree with you about expectations - that will never change though as Obama seems to be finding out.
The Tories dont really need that many answers - Blair was very policy light in 97.
I dont know if you can look back on Labourlist to see old comments but my case has always been that Labour will lose the next election and unless they are prepared for opposition it will not only damage them but also damage the country. Nothing is worse than a government that doesnt really have any opposition to challenge it. I dont want Labour to turn into what the Tories were from 97 to 2005.
Anyway thats me.
Well said, people don't want all the ego and I saved the world BS, they worry about stuff that affects them, they worry about how honest the government is (it isn't) and they worry how they are going to pay the bills and a lot of people can't. GB and most of the cabinet just look like they come from a different planet to most people
1) The problem with this position intellectually is that it was a concession that choice and freedom as expressed through markets delivered better results than state control. But then (a) you're at the thin end of a wedge (how much market is OK?) and (b) more devastatingly, if you are to advocate as on the basis of mere expedience, where does that leave you philosophically? If a major plank of government policy is about accepting something that is basically evil (markets) but nevertheless successful, in what sense do you have any political principles at all?
2) The intellectual problems contributed to a habit of attempting to manipulate the media through spin. The party became an election machine devoid of any inherent reason for existing.
3) In order to be credible they had to pick a fight with the old socialists but this emphatic victory simply underlined the gap between everyone's perceptions of Labour and the actions of its leadership. The party cut anchor and became a moving feast (deliberate mixed metaphor - made me laugh anyway).
4) In the absence of any principles or obvious values, the party shifted from a love-in with America supporting wars and sacrificing blood for the Special Relationship, to being "at the heart of Europe" and getting the UK further committed to EU membership. The priority was "Education education education" and then one year to save the NHS. Then it the war on poverty, then the war on terror. The priority was prudence economically and then it was investing money in public services. Every cause seemed plausibly relevant because there were almost no grounds for supporting or not supporting anything.
5) Finally, in the absence of any conviction, the party became a clique of Blairites and Brownites, people who were clearly politically aligned but who had no clear philosophical differences. The way to understand how vacuous it is, compare with the Tory party where you had "wets" and "Thatcherites". Broadly speaking, the former were conservative with a small "c", ambivalent towards Europe and in the tradition of paternalistic law and order Tories. The latter were Friedmanites, libertarians etc. Both cohabited a broad church that was preferable to letting the socialists get in. There were individuals at the top of the party who represented both factions. But the factions were not about the personalities. In the Labour party the difference is entirely about the personalities. No one outside Parliament gives damn about Blairites versus Brownites. It's only relevant to the Westminster bubble.
Personality power.
Whilst that is the case, then I don't think that there is much chance of a decent government
I'm not a tribalist either, as I left the party over Iraq and only voted for them with great misgivings last time.
I would certainly question whether Osborne is right. A lot of the problem is that the electorate wants French level services paid for by American level taxation. Tax and spend should be discussed together, but the absence of a proper and mature debate on taxation has been the major absence of the past 12 years.
For that reason I would also question whether the Tories have very many answers which is itself going to have an impact on how long they remain in power.
Well done for highlighting one of the reasons Labour is going to get buried.
What a hoon
Gordonovitch's speech will be along the lines of:
"Four legs good, two legs bad and er; two legs are about cuts and four legs are about investment and raising the tax burden even more than before because the poor are still poor after twelve years of growth under Nu Labour and if you let the two legs in the poor will remain poor where as this time - honest - we Nu Labour pigs will help the poor er, to stay poor because it is to our electoral advantage and that of the big business that now sponsor our bacon slicing factory, horse glue factory, beef and shepherds pie manufactory, money laundering facility ....... er; Tony for Emperor of Europe and Mandleson for Prime Minister and of course..... er: prudence is the key except for bankers and their million pound bonuses gained from gambling with taxpayers money used to keep them in million pound bonuses.... er; remember to switch off the lights to prevent Global warming or if you are the last person left in the conference hall er; four legs good two legs bad....er: Thank me for all your success."
Yep, Anthony, that's really going to turn things around.
100% agree i have posted that a few times but as this post was about ideas i was trying offer my thoughts .
ricki
I'm very much a believer in governments losing elections rather than oppositions winning them, and that has never been more true.
The Labour party will still return a solid bloc of MP's next time.
But there are questions which will need to be answered and I do think that a more pluralist left-of-centre politics including not only Labour supporters but also radical LibDems and some Greens will need to emerge. I think that it is clear enough that Labour remains a left-of-centre party and I don't think that the LibDems have any stronger set of beliefs which bind them together - indeed, it seems to me that they are significantly split between social democrats like Charles Kennedy and Evan Harris, and those who are closer to classical free market liberalism like Clegg.
Parties always go through problems after so long in government. There could well be realignment after the next election but I don't think the LibDems are in a better position to organise this alone than Labour. Much more likely that there will be co-operation - and this must, this time, include a clear commitment to electoral reform
The reason i put those up was to try and restore trust with the voters , we disagree over afghanstan , thats fine but if a goverment send troops then it has to back them 100% .
I was trying to be consructive
ricki
1. Yes, but work towards an EU wide ID card
2. Meaningless
3. Yes, fair enough
4. I don't think that's happening
5. Why? He's no different from anyone else in Government and a damned sight more competent than many
6. No, withdraw them and then cut defence to the bare minimum needed. Not a penny more money wasted
7. Can't see what difference it would make. We know there were no WMD, we know that the US wanted to see regime change and that we supported them and that there was every intention of invading well over a year beforehand
8. No. Don't believe in referenda. Governments are elected to govern and make decisions.
9. Yes, agree with that, but it needs to be integrated into a wider change of tax rates
10. If those things were done and an election was called then I'd vote Green
I'm beginning to think (reluctantly) that it's all over for the Labour party. New Labour's lies and deceit were fatal for the long-term health of the party. Consequently no one knows what the party is for any more.
Things can hold together as long the party holds office: power is cohesive. But if the next election is lost, what is the set of beliefs that will bind everyone together? No one seems to defend socialism any more and the New Labour alternative has been shown to be nothing more than vacuous lies.
Perhaps Labour supporters should follow the Guardian and put their weight behind the LibDems? Those who do advocate socialism or communism (or whatever label they prefer to give it) could join the Socialist Worker Party or even set up a new openly left wing party.
There does come a time when governments and parties run out of steam - its called the electoral cycle - and then, governments lose elections, rather than oppositions winning them. That is certainly the case at the moment.
The Tories, insofar as they say anything, suggest that expenditure should be cut soon, having taken advice from another group of experts.
Stalemate.
Time for another expert. Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you Lord Skidelsky.
Who?
Lord Skidelsky. An historian who has written a biography of Keynes and a book on the Great Depression.
Well, if he knows all about the Great Depression maybe he knows all the answers.
Yes, of course he does, since there is universal agreement as to its cause and solution.
So, Labour were voted in and whoever is leader becomes PM. he same will be the case after the next election - the majority or largest party leader will become PM
He never gave us the the chance to vote him in.
He won't give us the chance to vote him out.
Edit: He never gave us the the chance to vote his Government in when he became Prime Minister
He won't give us the chance to vote the Government of which he is Prime Minister out
"If he ditches tactical manoeuvring and instead presents a vision"
If wishes were horses beggars would ride.
Gordon won't do it because he can't. He has shown he can't change. The best he could do is rather than have her introduce him, let Sarah give the whole speech.
you are to a point right , Some of us care about the way the party and the leadership have drifted away and we are trying to change it using this platform , I also know it wont make any difference , But it gives us a chance to debate polices and perhaps a way forward .
ricki
Uh oh ..I see a problem
of course gordon might be able to pull things together a little if he delivers a barnstorming wowser at the conference; and pigs might fly. but you know he won't - because he can't. he is not an orator, he is not a communicator, he is not empathetic and he is not sufficiently articulate. he's blunt, dull, bludgeoning and boorish - and in the current state labour finds itself, politically toxic. the country sees him and rolls its eyes in varying combinations of anger, outrage, irritation, dislike, frustration, pity and disappointment. and charles clarke's latest pearls of reality go mysteriously unheard again. are they not worthy of debate here? they will certainly be debated in brighton whether you like it or not.
you all know this to be self-evidently true. but still you clutch at the "if onlys ..." instead of responding to - and acting upon - the challenges you face as a political movement. the tories did this to themselves relentlessly for several years after 1997 but even though you kid yourselves otherwise (another symptom of denial), they do it no longer: the political medicine having finally been recognised, sought, self-prescribed then taken.
one word springs to mind: lemmings.
Here is a first draft speech for Gordon:
Sorry about that boom and bust promise, I got a bit carried away. Sorry for letting the deficit get out of control, but I thought I'd eliminated boom and bust. Sorry for telling you spending would increase, when we were planning cuts all along, but I was a bit embarrassed and didn't want to admit we were bust. Sorry about the off balance sheet debt, but if I had fessed up to this then it would have ruined my image as the Iron Chancellor, which I quite liked whilst it lasted. That gold thing, yes I'm sorry for that. Sorry for telling you all we were best placed for the recession and that other countries have left us behind. To future generations, I'm sorry you are going to be paying off the debt for years to come.
Yes I have been in charge of domestic policy for the last 12 years and sorry for that too. I thought throwing money and setting targets would do the trick. To the long term unemployed, I'm sorry I never got you into work during the boom. The poverty gap has widened, sorry. Lisbon referendum sorry. I know I promised a vision for government when I became Prime Minister, sorry, I didn't have time in the end. Anyone who my team smeared either inside or outside the Labour party, sorry to them too. To the troops fighting Tony's wars, sorry you should have had the equipment you needed.
But let's focus on our policies. Firstly we hate the Tories. Secondly we want an historic 4th term for a Labour government. Progressive values I think we can all agree on.
The cuts are coming along with higher taxation from April with deeper cuts to come after that.
So are you saying that you disagree with Labour? Or are you hoping that the public will suddenly start listening to a government that still had to borrow billions during the boom years? A government that has now accepted that Osborne was right (a big call) and that cuts will be needed?
If all you have left is the timing of those cuts then you are not only trying deceive the public but also yourself.
As for the speech who cares? No one but tribalist Labour supporters still clinging to the hope that something ANYTHING may just happen to pull them out of this dismal mess will be listening. It will be the usual clunking soundbites, the usual blaming the tories, scaremongering about the tories........good god I'm falling to sleep just thinking about it.
Its over. And once in you will find getting back very very hard to do...except....I offer a little ray of hope.
Gordon lists what he thinks Labour have accomplished. Then he admits that the message is no longer getting through and the government as a result has no possibility to drive through the radical change Labour wants without a new mandate. He wont attack the other parties but stress he thinks Labour are best placed to sort the mess out. He thanks everyone and declares that he is stepping down and will call an immediate election.
It will be a brave noble act of selflessness.
And for that reason Labour and Brown will never go for it.
Conservative wise, I think you're right. I'd dearly love the pictures of Cameron hitting puppies with a lump hammer to be on the front pages of every red top in the land, but it isn't going to happen. He is the new Golden Child as Tony Blair was in '97. What I would say is this whole rubbish about bad economic policy and how they will wreck the countries finances. I don't think you will find history backs up those assumptions and speaking from a Labour platform doesn't do you any favours with the assertation either.
The one thing that has to be accepted is that GB can not and will not reach a whole new level for a very simple reason. He has promised much in his premiership but has not once delivered. He has blatantly lied to the electorate so many times that if he told me it was Wednesday, I'd check the calander, as would the majority throughout the country.
I won't waste time listing bad policies that have come under GB's banner, but you know what they are Anthony and you have to ask yourself what you are fighting for now. Do you want to fight to keep GB in his position or for him to be swiftly replaced by one of the cretins from the cabinet immediately after the election even? Do you genuinely believe the utter rubbish the man spouts and is it enough to wear a red rosette now considering what GB has done both through lack of action and too many untrue words?
Recently I was asked what I would do if I met GB. The perception was that I'd tear him a new one based on what I write about him on the LL, but you know what, I'd ask him why. I'd ask him why he has wasted the one opportunity he ever had to make Britain a better place, why he has wasted his premiership with posturing and why he is still where he is. I know why. I know full well it is about pensions, cold hard cash and nothing he ever says will disuade me from that belief, but at least I am true about the situation. I will not support a Labour government with the present set of characters at the top of the food chain. When they are wiped out, when they have been battered by the electorate, hopefully there will be a spark of realisation that they should have listened when they could have done, but then I don't have much confidence in that given what I have spent my time reading over the past few days.
The very best thing GB can do with his speech is use it to admit the mistakes, admit the bad policies and apologise, but then that would take an honourable man and there are precious few of those left at the top of the Labour Party, or women for that matter as Baroness Scotland has just proved. Resignation is a matter of honour for bringing the Party into disrepute and not a decision for an out of touch Prime Minister who knows full well he is about to get a well-deserved spanking at the polls.
Brown certainly fawned over the novice in the White House as soon as he was appointed. But I suppose it's different when a novice is appointed that you like.
He isn't humble other than when his head is on the block.
He isn't honest.
He isn't brave.
He has no moral compass.
In that time one of the most competitive economies in the world has been turned into one of the unhealthiest (see IMF for details). Billions have been squandered with little to show for it. Ancient rights have been actively undermined in the name of terrorism. Surveillance and ID checks make the country like an Orwellian dystopia. And all of this has been achieved under a barrage of spin and lies. Political corruption is worse than ever. To rub salt in the wound we are now governed by an unelected PM, an unelected puppet master (Wormtongue) and an unelected Minister for Europe.
Anyone who thinks that even a great speech from this unlikely fellow could make any difference to the outcome next election, is clutching at straws.
I only done ten and thought others can add the rest , But its start
ricki
that GB is the right person to lead the nation. After eveything?
When will Milburn and Byers make their next "useful" contribution to NuLabour?
It's interesting that it is the RIGHT wing of the Labour party doing the most damage to a RI
GHT wing "Labour" government.
Chief Inspector Dreyfuss
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/8269326.stm
I've just listened to Gordon on Radio 5. He's not up to the challenge. Gordon is averse to honesty. The public don't trust him and will punish him.
Or on Baroness Scotland's stunningly arrogant 'apology'?
Or on her expenses?
Don't Labour Party members want to debate these issues or is it just too painful Alex?
The only suspended judgement in the electorate is the number who would like to hang the PM and your Party
And
Simple.
"I resign"
What should gordon say ?
1 scrap Id cards
2 tell the truth
3 admit mistakes
4 stop treting the public as idiots
5 sack Peter Mandleson
6 support our troops
7 Hold the Iraq inquiry in public
8 hold a referrndum on the Eu trety
9 10 p tax
10 then call a imediate election
ricki