Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
#1
It is almost a racing certainty now that Labour will have one of the biggest defeats in history at the next election. Despite the bravura in Downing St this is clearly going to happen, unless we experience some kind of untold and miraculous 'Lazarus like' revival. Lazarus, you might remember, was brought back from the dead in Biblical lore, a miracle, but miracles are rare, and rarer still in politics.
There was a discussion about this inevitability on radio last night by veteran Labour MP's who have to a man accepted the gloom. Veteran Michael Meacher was the biggest name among the group. But yes gloom prevails and this despair was cemented by those awful lower tiered election results recently. Lower tiered they may be but they provide a vision of the cataclysmic failure to come.
The veteran MP's were calling for Labour to return to the way it was pre Tony Blair, when it was much more grass root oriented, all cloth caps and brown ale you might say.
In my view this would be a mistake. Tony Blair gave them 3 victories in a row by being the exact opposite to the previous cloth cap and brown ale image. He modernised, won so big and so well that he demanded reforms and got them. There should be no going back. The party is mainstream now and more acceptable to the wider voting public.
The voting market, if I can put it that way, that old labour stood for, is no longer there. The cloth cap johnnies and brown ale swiggers have moved mainstream with their 2.4 families and their plasma tv's. The goalpost has moved.Those horrible days of beer and sandwiches circa 1970 have thankfully gone. For Labour to return to those old roots would leave it isolated and stuck in the past, in an ugly timewarp, and probably make the party unelectable for the next 30 years.
Guest 687- Registered: 2 Jun 2009
- Posts: 513
#2
There is absolutely no difference between today's Labour Party and the so called 'cloth cap' imaged Labour Party. It seeks to totally control its members and those elected under it's banner as well as the electorate.
Examples of the former is the way the Labour members of Dover Town Council were instructed to nominate and support Councillor Cowans for the Town mayoralty and when they failed to do so tried to call to book those who opposed him. There are numerous other examples of this happening both at local and national level.
As for controlling the electorate, you only have to look at the current benefits system.This is a classic example of state dependancy and control whereby the need to support oneself can be totally removed. It was initially intended to be a 'safety blanket' but is now nothing more than an income option for a great proportion of the population. However and I stress this, there are those who through no fault of their own are dependant upon the benefits system and in the main have contributed to its finances. The benefits system should be seen as an insurance policy in times of illness, unemployment and continuing disability, not as an option to employment.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#3
The longer Brown delays an election the worse it will get for Labour, in the same way that it would have been better for the Conservatives if Major had gone to the country sooner before 1997 or even if he lost in 1992.
Some believe, and I hope they are right, that after the longest ever period of Labour misrule and their traditional method of ending their terms of office, a financial crisis, being the biggest ever bust, that we will never see a period of Labour Government again. Certainly if the left get control they will become a fringe party competing with the Greens.
That means we will need a different opposition party. Whilst I hope never to see a Labour Government again, we do need an opposition alternative Government to have a healthy democracy. Will that be the LibDems? maybe UKIP (ohhhh I hope so.... unlikely though).
We shall see.
#4
Ken - you are simply describing politics, of all shades. All parties try to control the electorate in one way or another, and in many ways that is part of their job: to offer social controls and manage trends. All parties try to manage elections and candidates. Politics is about manipulation, control and power. That has never and will never change. The only thing that changes is the peoples perceptions of it and how they themselves manage it.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#5
I must correct you Bern. There is no such control by the Conservative party over its members as Labour exert over its people. Remember the Conservatives are the Party of the individual. You must surely be aware of the renewed drive towards localism in the Conservatives and the main driver for policy. That and personal responsibility are key to Conservative thinking.
#6
Control operates in different ways at different levels. I belonged to the party when young, when Gilmour was our local MP, spent a bit of time up at Westminster, not big stuff but enough to see how the different shades manipulate differently!!!!
Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
#7
WOW HERE I GO I JUST CANNOT BELIEVE THE POSTS ABOVE, WELL SOME OF THEM ANYWAY, SO NOW FOR MY POINT OF VIEW
KEN;
You have probably heard now that labour has opposed your application so you have decided to go back to old ways of attacking those you say you support!!!!!!!!
on the issue of mayor making, lets get this story totally correct, there was a labour party meeting of labour town cllrs to put forward its nomination to be mayor, a person was put forward and this being in a DEMOCRATIC VOTE of the labour group.
As you know Ken because of these stupid arguments the labour party is having to involve itself it because so called labour members go against DEMOCRATIC DECISIONS that i have over the years firstly been critical of these decisions, but because of lack of action by the party, felt it better if the labour party pulled out of the town council altogether.
Again sadly this hasn't happened, the party has to decide if it wants to continue to be involved with such an outfit, so lets not give out mis truths ken, you know how these votes happen, and you yourself have tried to control people in the your time in the party so please don';t give this holier that thou impression.
All the time the labour party SELECTS Labour party candidates, then as you know KEN on the selection you are always asked ARE YOU HAPPY TO ABIDE BY LABOUR PARTY RULES to which NO ONE has ever said no as yet!!!!
So that means the labour rebels were clear in the decision they made.
Me i would get them to put there case to the local party, but the party HAS TO disipline them in some way, to not to would just leave the floodgates open for anyone to say anything they liked, whilst im a great believer in openess, they all chose to join a club, rules as well.
Iv had to votre/.support/leaflet/canvass for many people who i have no time for but i abide by DEMOCRATIC DECISIONS you win some you lose some
This wAS A SCANDAL and im waiting to see action.
BARRYW
Come on boyo, you have me watching now, Our SUE was kicked out of cabinet cos she spoke against here leader and had the bottle to stand out
then theres the rumour that r frayne is upset at way hes beding treated by the tory group on district not getting committee he wanted, and totally dissatisfied with cabinet system and his leader NOT telling him wots going on till its already happened!!!!
so lets be fair when we make such accusations, they have to be truthful
its not about any individual, its about DEMOCRACY
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#8
Totally different issues there Keith. Being able to accept and tolerate individuals is not the same thing as, for instance, someone being upset about their committees or the cabinet system (something I dont like either). In the grown up world we cant all have exactly what we want. Likewise Sue, differences of opinion happen and when you have a cabinet it should be supportive of the leader at least in public. Being removed from the cabinet is not the same as being kicked out of the Party. Sue has always been a bit of a maverick and said her piece and yet was a long standing member of the cabinet. We can tolerate the odd maverick, unlike your mob.
Don't you remember how your Party tried to stop officials posting on this forum (or its predecessor). Surely you remember the well reported incident of a Labour Councillor being sworn at by the Labour MP for associating with certain people, including myself, on this forum.
Tell me Keith, surely you are not denying the collective inheritance of the Labour Party, and surely you can agree that the Conservative Party has an individualist heritage? These are matters of fact and history that influence the behaviour and thinking of the two parties.
I do not want to get into the internal wrangles of the Labour Party but you must know that it is the Town Council as a whole that elects the mayor, not just the Labour Party. If some of the Labour councillors have some real objections to the nominee of their Party then they surely have a right to vote the way of their concience at the Mayor making. It is a credit to them that they did so. Would it not have been better to have listened more to their concerns within your group and try to accomodate them, with perhaps a compromise candidate? better than riding rough shod over your own members surely, thats just asking for trouble.
Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
#9
BARRYW
I would hate to say your WRONG but your wrong!!!!!!!!!
There is no diffrence between OUR SUE being removed than wot goes on in the ,labour party.
And no i do not share your view on the tory party because of how they act locally and nationally and can be proved.
on the mayor lets again be clear, discussions took place and the labour party after many discussions decided to run with the DEMOCRATIC vote it had.
Please don't try to tell me how town councils run im fully aware how it runs.
The indies/tory if they so wished could have also put forward a nomination in fact it is rumoured secret meetings took place anyway!!!!
but what is done is done, now the labour party will have to decide if it will let the rebels who broke labour party rules if its do anythng about this.
lots of members are looking on and watching the next step.
Lets also whilst we are here clear up this point AGAIN on the past.
Im in the party so can tell you as it happened, not your so called THIS IS WOT I HEARD OPINION.
What happened was at that time there were a number of challenges at the time you will recall one ended up on radio kent!!!
The labour party at NO TIME instructed its members not to post.
It didn't matter what was said at that time the majority just decided to become very personal against the party, so some decided on a very personal/individual basis to stop posting.
I even had a little time out purely because of the personal postings at that time, it was clear it was being used for political means only at the time,. many of us welcomed paulb move to close it down and start again, although i still feel we need the politics page.
On postings the labour party would not and did not instruct anyone to stop posting
I cannot comment on wot the MP may have said but would have to have clear honest evidence of it something not produced up to now
Guest 687- Registered: 2 Jun 2009
- Posts: 513
#10
Keith. The very poor quality of your postings make it difficult to respond as well as the fact you are ranting not debating which is a great pity as you are very eloquent when debating in the flesh.
Two points I could make out were the issue of a refused application and the profanity of the local MP. Point one, there is no application from me to join the party and therefore I challenge you to produce written evidence and evidence of the parties refusal. Point two, the local MP did use a profanity in a conversation with me and as there were no witnesses denied doing so, which as far as I am concerned shows he made a severe error of judgement on both counts.
In reference to the mayoralty, despite the Labour parties alleged democratic decision the Town has gained a very good Mayor and that rare species one not only born in Dover but with a very clear and caring persona untainted by ambition and a preprogrammed political mind.
Ross Miller
- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,709
#11
As usual this descends into personal attacks and slurs - oh how predictable.
As to Barry's post
Yes the Labour party was founded on collectivism as it was created by working people for themselves and they had learnt via the union movement that collective action was the only way to allow them some semblance of power in an unequal world. However they have always operated an internal democracy, unlike some of their founding unions, and fully support and endorse the democratic process.
The Conservative party has always been a libertarian party, however until the post war period was also the party of privilege (because how can one be truly libertarian unless one is also privileged). Whilst this has slowly changed since the fifties, it still has a huge capacity to show utter contempt and disdain for the ordinary working person.
To be honest neither party fills me with joy, both have their internal control mechanisms to keep the mavericks in line, though the Tories generally offer a little more leeway than the Labour Party.
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#12
I would suggest a lot more leeway in the Conservatives, having been part of the Conservative party in many roles over the last 30 plus years. My observations over these years certainly show that the Labour Party have a fiercely controlling approach, a far less tolerant, indeed intolerant attitude to individuals and individualism.
Needless to say Ross that I dont entirely agree with your analysis of the Conservative as always being a libertarian party. We do have a strong liberarian streak but we also have a respect for law and order and accept a role for a strong (though small) State.
Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
#13
AND looking back to SUE, bARRYW theres no way you can be correct.
KEN';
Let me take your points one at a time
KEN REF JOING LABOUR PARTY
point 1 Ken if thats correct then thats all well and good it wasn't I that raised the subject I just replied to the original post.
POINT 2; If the MP made comments to you with no witnesses then maybe he was
wise to do it that way? although not professional but we only have your
word for that
POINT 3 ;
You have chosen to ignore my views/comments and you know where
i'm coming from, sadly the rebels decided an undemocratic route
This has nowt to do with any individual which sadly these posts have
allowed to happen, its about democracy, im a great believer in
democracy and sufferd myself on losing votes in the labour party
and having to support persons i may feel not so happy with, but the
rebels decided to personalise this, and i'm very surprized at 1 of
the rebels who is usually very much into democracy.
I feel sad KEN on your comments you state alleged its CLEAR FACTS as much as you don't want to hear it.
I'm also sad that you have decided to discredit previous mayors with your support for the pressent non party mayor.
I feel most of the mayors have diffrent qualities and many have served Dover well over the years, Without mentioning my own relative who i believe did a good job as dep and mayor in difficult times and had public support.
I would say they have all done a good job in there own way
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#14
this argument about collective and individual means nothing to the average citizen.
all most of us care about is employment, health, education and the lowest taxes possible to deal with this.
our leader mentioned that the beer and sandwich days at no.10 are gone, of course, that was 30 years ago.
the public have changed, that does not mean that the labour party should not give more time to it's core support.
whilst they continue to fail to do this, then extremist parties will step in.
much the same can be said of the conservative party. they look like winning a general election by default.
most of the labour hierarchy have admitted this.
the core blue support is anti europe, yet the leadership is pussy footing around the subject.
should be fun when boy dave gains office and the knives come out.
Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
#15
howard
Yes sadly looks grim, but its still going to be hard for people to bring themselves to elect this horrid lot.
Like you say they may win by default, cos labour voters stay at home, how tragic that will be.
Yep one thing the tories do well is look after there own, Labour always struggles to do this, and the labour party has distanced itself so much from its members.ITS in a land of no return now.
Go please its lefty members and not get elected
or fight out middle England with the tories and hold seats.
time will te;ll on all this
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#16
i think that you may be right there keith.
labour,to some extent, has distanced itself from it's supporters.
however the opposition has done much the same, will be interesting to see how many foot sloggers come out at the next general election.
i was interested to read this morning, in a broadsheet, a leading future labour leader speaking about his own upbringing on a sink estate, and how he and his family felt threatened by anti social behaviour.
first time i have heard a politician in recent year describe things as they are.
wish i could remember his name.
Ross Miller- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,709
#17
One cynic once described the difference between left & right as:
Left - I am alright Jack, now how can I help you
Right - I am alright Jack f*** you
Whilst I do not believe, for a moment, that it is that simplistic it does cut to the nub of the difference between collectivism and libertarianism (as generally practised in this country)
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
#18
Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
#19
Having been a life long labourite of over 27 years and a lefty at that I have found it sad that Labour has gone in the direction that it has.
I do fully understand the need to get elected to Govt, and under old Labour it was unlikely to do so, and would have great difficulty in getting out of opposition.
Labour is now in a real serious situation, at the moment its still clearly on this middle England route and unlikely to change.
It has to decide whether or not to return to its roots but to do so would make them unelectable.
I had no time for T Blair, but he knew whsat he was on, was a wonderful speaker and carried people with him for some time..
I hope this Tory Geezer elected as speaker is given the opportuniuty by both or all 3 major parties to make radical changes, whilst we may not have wanted him as our first choice, hes elected to do the job and im pleaesed it didn't come down to party lines.
It's going to be now the leaders of the parties gioving him support to make the changes.
The out of date way he was stumbled to the chair(an out of date tradition)looked realy out of place, old fashioned, and did little to my mind to inspire people.
Even he looked very very sad at way it wasa done.
Surely its time to move away and modernise from these out of date silly stuff.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#20
Nothing wrong with traditions Keith. By all means modernise but do so in ways without throwing away tradition.
