By Alex Smith / @alexsmith1982
Following from my post yesterday "It's not about left and right..." I've now received this message from Labour First into my inbox.
Although it reflects some of my own thinking about the need to unify the party at this difficult time, it does little to offer any solution or new alternative other than the need for power. Ironically, it seems to criticise different organisations for having ideas that, God forbid, may be different.
My point yesterday was that, yes, there are many millions of people who rely on a Labour government in this country and yes it is important that Labour is in government for those people.
But at the same time, there is no point in being in government for the sake of it. We need to find purpose and unity around powerful ideas and we need to find balance in discussion. This email, sadly, offers few of those ideas and little recognition of the need for that discussion.
We need to know not that Labour should be in office (and please, please let's stop calling it "power"), but why...
Message from John Spellar MP - based on a speech given to The Black Country Labour First Group
All To Play For
Labour First and its predecessors have always been in conflict with the defeatist tendencies in the Party. The formation of the SDP was based on the proposition that Labour could never win power again and could not change. That heresy was proved overwhelmingly wrong at the 1997 General Election. Meanwhile, elements of the Hard Left have always gravitated towards the easy attractions of opposition and would far prefer to pass resolutions than legislation.
Once again we are facing twin pronged defeatism from within our ranks. Some would seem to prefer to lose power than win under Gordon Brown, while the Hard Left seem to have taken satisfaction in resigning themselves to a return to opposition. They both share the view that Labour has its turn in government to try and rush through progressive legislation before running out of steam and public support, leaving the natural party of government, the Tories, to resume control. We have always rejected that pessimism believing that Labour can and should be a party of government not just of insurgency. We also reject the delusional view that what is needed is a ‘New Workers Party’.
We are particularly concerned because both tendencies seem to accept the inevitability of defeat at the next General Election which is not based on the data. We should firstly remember that the Tories currently have less MPs than the Labour Party under Michael Foot after the 1983 General Election – 193 v 209.
So let us look at the arithmetic of the next election – there are currently 647 seats in the Commons, so to have a majority requires 324 MPs (Labour currently has 351) and the Tories 193. So, for the Tories to have a single seat majority they need to win 131 seats. It’s fair to make an assumption that the boundary changes that are coming into force in the next Election will give them an extra 10 seats so we can make a working assumption that they need 120 seats for a majority.
That’s where their problems start. Even in 1997 we only gained 147 seats across the whole of the UK, 132 of them in England. In Scotland the Tories only have one MP and they have little expectation of making gains there. In Wales they have done a bit better, but only have four MPs out of 40. In Northern Ireland the Tories have entered into a bizarre alliance with the Ulster Unionists whose sole MP, Sylvia Hermon, doesn’t go along with the arrangement and there is little realistic prospect of it making gains there.
As a consequence the Tories have to make nearly all their gains in England. That is against a background of stickiness in the polls. In the European elections while the Labour vote dropped the gains were made by minor parties, the Tories only went up by 1%. This is clearly not 1997 territory. It would appear the Tories realise this and are becoming increasingly desperate. We have the demand for an instant General Election and now Cameron is predicting riots on the streets if Labour win.
The danger is that we defeat ourselves, particularly if we become a divided party and an undisciplined rabble. The fault will not be in our stars but in ourselves. History shows us that the public heavily punish divided parties. The reality is the next election is all to play for. We have a good record to fight on and can point to real changes and improvements in our constituencies. At the same time the Tories and Lib Dems have incoherent polices and are making mistakes. These are the messages we have got to get across to the public. At all levels of the party we need to focus on winning by pulling together and putting Labour First.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
He needs to look very closely at his own behaviour, and, quite frankly, people like him and McNulty who have bought a great deal of shame on Labour, (I'd say on themselves as well but I expect they are totally avoid of shame or self-control) should actually announce they are stepping dowan at the election. Nothing on earth would induce me to vote for some of the scum that is preening itself and pretending to be "Labour" MPs
Thanks Mike, I look forward to this one ;)
B Bendle has some ideas below on cost saving, so that should help.
Or if Spellar is suggesting we take it the line in context? Would it be logical to follow that 'Cassius' is played by him, 'Brutus' is represented by the Labour activists and he is encouraging them that it is in their best interests to rid themselves of 'Caesar' who it would, again, be logical to assume is the great leader himself, Gordon Brown.
It just seems to be a strange line to add to what is a mediocre speech, devoid of any real substance and continuing with 'History shows us that the public heavily punish divided parties' I mean what is he suggesting? That 'Brutus' (the Labour activists) lead a plot against the part man, part God that is 'Caesar'? 'Brutus' united 60 senators, but it didn't turn out too well for 'Caeser' did it!
It's a theory, but who will play the part of 'Servilius'?
This particular quote comes from Julius Ceasar "“The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in our stars, but in ourselves if we are underlings.”
It is where he is encouraging Casius to join him in the first night of the long knives.
It's time they had me on Quote, Unquote. This week alone I have given them Palmerston, Elliott, now the greatest of them all!.
I think the answer is probably that the politicians of the forties and fifties were as shocked and tired of the atrocities of war - the carnage and inhumanity that both parties leaders had an overwhelming desire to give back a sense of stability to the people: I expect that, despite the strong desire for social change, which was what bought Atlee to power, BUT there was a need for remedies to be given time to work. I think the word most used by Blair and the whole NL shower over the last decade has been "change". Just to prove they are always "alert" nothing is allowed to settle down. All is in a state of flux (the constant education and health "reforms" are good examples of this). Quite often it is impossible to judge how successful something has been because within a year or so it has been "changed" again.
Also, of course, postwar Labour Mps mainly came from the working class, and they had families, whose sons and daughters had very likely seen military service during the war. These days none of the ministers have been in the Army, RAF or Navy, and their kids are safely at Oxbridge, so when they are deciding to be America's best mate in Iraq or Afghanistan they know it is somebody elses son or daughter that will be doing the fighting - not theirs.
As Blair was so war-minded, I think, a bit like the Royal Family (and lets face it Blair thought he was the Queen), young Euan should have been made to join up and been sent out there (I always remember Euan Blair complaining when he was an intern for the Democrats in the States complaining they were "too left wing" - a real chip off the old block)
If current politicians had experience of war, perhaps they would be less eager to engage us in wars.
Thanks for your comments.
On energy, we were a mass exporter of energy once, whereas now we are a mass importer. Long term investment in the infrastructure is not really something that private companies would undertake. Just look at the storage levels we have for the various energy streams.
I do agree that we could make money to use for other social projects.
B, I agree about consultants, part of my job is as a type of a consultant. The money that these people charge is crazy. You only really need somebody who can help a group of people come to a joint decision. Once the methods for achieving this are know, bang no more need to pay a consultant.
On the “layer of bureaucracy from education”, I use a process at work which looks at remove the unnecessary bureaucracy within processes. This approach can be transfer to any process where there is bureaucracy, and I am hoping to help a school look at their paper work systems in the next few months. This will be done for free. I can send anybody the outline of this method if they are interested. If it can help, that is great.
Alex, could you do a post on what people would like to see from Labour?
In Unity
MA
I'd be really interested in how National Service and all the post-WW@ "small wars" - eg Suez, Korea, Malaya, Palestine fitted into this. It must have added steam to union campaigns for peace.
I agree entirely re the current MPs apparent lack of interest in the story of the party and its people. And this isn't backwards looking; I've just come back from the Durham Miners Gala, which is living proof that you can connect that old story to the present in ways that make sense.
Could I add some suggestions?
A skilled minimum wage as well as the basic one. Would remove at a stroke lots of the workplace tension between non-English speaking immigrant labour and indigenous British, and encourage training.
Remove a layer of bureaucracy from education, by getting rid of LEAs, thus freeing up a vast amount of money for spending on actual schools. While we're at it, less training days - teachers loathe them anyway.
Change the way Regional Devlopment bodies fund projects so that long term success becomes more important than the number of short term ideas. Loads of schemes peter out aftyer two years because the funding is only guaranteed that long. Better not to have it at all.
Energy in this country is run by private concerns, very profitable private concerns who take every advantage to increase those profits further. Take for example the hike in crude oil. This should not have effected gas or electricity prices because the wholesale price of natural gas wasn't effected at all by the increase in crude oil, but it was used as a lever to hike the prices across the board by 30%. And what have we seen since? 10% here, 5% there?
If energy production in this country was nationalised, instantly a 3rd could come off the majority of utility bills. This would benefit everyone, from those in fuel poverty, right across all income brackets. And why not? Every single utility bill we pay takes money from our pockets, money that could be saved, spent on our children or even a well earned break.
Once nationalised the profits earned would not be as vast as the private sector is getting, but they would still be substantial. For the first say 5 years, this profit could be plowed back into the industry to update and modernise those power stations that need it, solve the impending energy crisis and if extra capacity was built in we could realise a new export; power. It is easy to transport, easy to meter and sell. You could say it is the perfect export.
Once the national grid is brought up to date and providing an income from exports, we then have as a nation:
a) Cheap power at the disposal of new industry
b) Cheaper domestic bills encouraging spending in the economy
c) No need to subsidise OAPs for their winter fuel
d) A profitable income for the treasury
e) An exportable product
With this new source of income, some of the things you have listed could become a reality and we would be better as a nation for it. But if a government attempts to introduce anything that can not generate a profit, such as building social housing onmass without a realistic LTV return for the money it would need to borrow, then we would end up deeper in the mud than we already are.
I apologise if this is quite badly written, I'm eating my dinner while I'm writing. Bad manners I know, but my wife has taken the kids out so I'm behaving like a bit of a slob for once and enjoying a meal in silence for the first time in, well, a while.
Here are a few of my ideas:
All schools are good quality, stop the need to choose
Teachers given more power to deal with disruptive students and decide how the school can best work
Massive social housing projects
Total involvement of local communities in there areas to decide how money is best spent
Massive investment in youth activities
Massive free program of adult education
Staff in the NHS having more power to make decisions on how best to run the hospitals
Nationalise the UK drug industry, reducing the cost to the NHS and free drugs to countries that need them
Free heating for the OAPs during winter
Reinvestment in creating British industry
Good quality Jobs
Good quality on job training for school leavers not going to University
Renationalise the railways, energy and water
As I think of more I will add to the list.
In Unity
MA
They proved to be greater than the sum of thier training and that is all for the good.
Please keep me up to date when you think of other things.....I'd appreciate it. I never get tired of hearing good stuff.
As for me I made myself "recession proof" this year. I was so fed up of idiots in both parties fluffing the economy that I went over to South Korea (itself in recession at the time) got the experience I needed and now can work in China/Japan or South Korea as ell as Blighty. Never again will political madness dictate my wage. I don't trust them with my livlihood. Though in defence of Labour it took an International crises (I have seen firsthand) to knock us off the peg.
I see lots of benefits for other people, whether I agree with how they have been implemented is another matter, but I can see the gains made for certain communities within Britain, but when it comes to the things that effect my day to day life I'm not as confident or quick to list.
Obviously I've gained a new found respect for the frontline service provided by the NHS. If it wasn't for their care and dedication I wouldn't be here to type this, but at the same time I can't ignore that many broke the rules to make sure I was given the best care. I know I would be in a wheelchair if they hadn't bypassed procedure and showed me compassion that isn't in their job description. Equipment wise though I have benefited enormously by the money spent by Labour on hospitals and medical care. Without a CT scan there would have been no way of knowing the imminent danger I was in and without MRI, no way of knowing just how successful the treatment I was given was.
I've noticed a marked improvement in maternity care. My eldest is 10 years old, my youngest is 4 weeks old, so I have seen the difference in care levels both before and after the birth over the period of the Labour government. These improvements again are equipment based and down to the frontline staff. When my eldest was scanned before his birth it was difficult to identify certain aspects of the scan, whereas with my next son they were able to tell me that he had the beginnings of the condition I had. The detail of the scan and the increased frequency that was then permitted to monitor him meant we could be reassured when the condition sorted itself out and he was born as healthy as can be. Scanning technology has improved, but it had to be purchased for us to gain the advantage of it.
I'm sure I have personally had some more gains but they are not leaping into my head, and maybe that is why I feel so disappointed with the Labour Party. I had hoped that the 'New' prefix meant that there would be a return to the late 1940's idea of the Labour Party. I'd hoped for some real investment in industry and jobs, something to rebuild the assets I saw being sold by the Conservatives but I also hoped that this 'New' meant that there would be a sensible approach to it. Little or no subsidies, but really good solid and profitable businesses. Was it a mistake to hope that common sense could rule in the housing market and that Labour would build houses on the scale they did in the late 40's and give people a chance of having a reasonably nice home, a chance no matter what their background at making a better life for themselves? I want to write a long list of gains, but its really hard to do that.
I've gained 3 gorgeous kids, a brilliant wife who understands me and I have a good home with food in the cupboards, that is my real gain since the late 90s but can any of those be attributed to Labour? Do I owe my life to the Labour Party of today, or do I owe it to the Labour Party of the late 40's? I'll keep thinking though Ralph, I'm bound to think of some gains that I can attribute to the Labour government. Just be glad you didn't ask about some of the losses though, we'd have been here all day.
The Tories need to get ready for governing after the next election as Labour is now a busted flush and hasn't a hope in hell.
If you feel you have good ideas for our party, keep them close to your chest and wait until after the General.....
It is my own personal view that the lack of vision has been fundamental with the current government. We have discussed at length the pros and cons of having people brought in as an elected "elite" and the limits to thier understanding of practical policy. They are in love with the finance sector (and the resulting stamp duty and corporation tax it generates), they love Europe as it adds another tier for them to advance thier political "careers".
Where the Labour MP's should have countered the errors of the Conservative Party the MP's have decided to have their own "polical class" in a similar manner to the US democrats and Republicans. Ironically in wanting to be more the US our parties are in effect going in the opposite direction and losing support left, right and centre.
I could list the things Labour has done for the poorer pensioners, wages in the armed forces etc, but I would be wasting my time as I am sure you could point out many negatives for each that I mention. Since I am a passionate political activist I tend to win a fair amount of support from the public when knocking on doors or telephoning people. I cannot see or perceive any passion or real concern by our MP's to do anything for anyone, except themselves.
One of the reasons I have been as active as I have been in emailing MP's and MInisters (though I stopped last week) is because of the damage I can see they are doing to democracy. I genuinly fear for dear old Blighty. This is due to Labour failing in putting across any meaningful image as to what it represents, we don't seem to have MP's we seem to have elected Civil Servants. Instead of taking Government by the scruff of the neck with a radical agenda (long and short-term) our MP's seem to just be keeping the wheels going around, in which case they are surplus to requirements.
Thier policies like the ID Card nonesense the Civil Service have been pushing for, for over 30 years!
These are not new exciting radical reforms, these are sad ideas being passed onto Ministers who don't know where else to look, they won't ask us members and they certainly won't ask the public as they do not want to be percieved as not having a clue, yet that is exactly how they are appearing.
Ironic.
As for me and many members of the party we have many creative and positive ideas about where we can win back our support and take the country further, but we are locked out completely. Now we are so jarred off we wouldn't help the MP's if they begged for it. Many are the comments from Labour minded people that they wish to see Labour lose pawer, "the hard left" as they have been clumsily labelled. But they are not, I am New Labour and am as opposed to Government as anyone else, except on the economical decisions. The reason we are not going to lose any sleep over a defeat (and I don't want a Tory victory) is just to see the incompetant morons/unaccountable and corrupt losers/blatent liars get kicked ourt of Cabinet.
Incidentally if any MP blames activists within my hearing range they will get more than they bargained for. I have physical evidence of the full extent of Labour MP/Minister stupidity and will ensure the blame goes to exactly where it belongs. Incidently there are still damn good MP's and even one or two Ministers, we just don't hear much about them sadly.
As a business man and father can you list anything you have gained/benefitted from since 1997?
Look at what we have though. A reduced spend on Tridant, some backtracking on ID cards and talk of reform both in Parliament and the way we vote. Its what people have been asking for, but it has only come about after a complete thrashing at the European elections. You get the feeling that decisions are being made not for what is best for the country, but what is the easiest route to saving the political skin of a few.
Mandleson completely misses the point. Rather than announce that the plans to sell of the Royal Mail are scrapped, he instead announces that it will be delayed, put on hold. Even the most loyal and tribal Labour supporter knows that if Labour win the next election in less than a week the sale of Royal Mail will be back on the agenda. What he has done is give Labour supporters who disagree with the sale a reason not to vote Labour.
On the subject of passion and vision, does anyone have it in politics anymore? I've seen momentary glimpses in Cameron, but I don't believe it is really there. I think we have another well-trained salesman fronting the Conservative party, he may be a likeable chap, but then James May seems a likeable chap but I wouldn't want him to run the country.
Cameron's vision, his passion, is to undo some of the daft ideas, laws and regulations that Labour have put into place without really thinking of the consequences. His drive is to erase a period that the majority of us don't really want to remember properly. I do it myself, I remember the minimum wage being introduced but selectively forget the beginning of the Iraq war. I can remember feeling great about the fall of Conservative MPs in 1997 who had been the face of policies I disagreed with, but the bottle of wine of a Saturday night helps me forget who replaced them.
But thats just it, I sit here struggling to think of the leaps forward in the past 12 years. The leap forward for the gay community is great, but I'm not part of that community, so it doesn't really effect me. Equal rights, okay, but as I'm reminded here quite a lot, I'm a white Englishman, so it hasn't made a massive change to my life. I disagree that tax credits are a good thing, I don't understand why new mothers get a £500 prize and when I hear about another 5 soldiers who have died, poorly equipped and without effective strategy, in a foreign land it doesn't give me satisfaction that the right choice was made way back in 1997.
The rallying call is that we need a Labour government, but then you need to ask yourself, does this Labour have the same passion and vision of Labour in the 1950s? Think about it, fox hunting ban compared to the NHS, Iraq war compared to the social housing building that rehomed hundreds of thousands and the thing that has caused all that money to disappear, relentless advertising, millions given over to the media compared to the nationalisation of key industries that rebuilt Britain.
Not a fantastic rallying call really is it? So the question isn't whether Labour has the same passion and vision, but rather, does it have any left at all?
They can't.
They lose elections.
Then if they are really stupid they blame the activists.
I agree with you on the lack of life-experience of our last PM, I think he would have been an excellent used car salesman though, I really think he could have transformed the industry....
Perhaps those who occupy the Labour Party now have forgotten the hard won battles, not just during the war, but on the streets of Britain for the rights to vote, the rights to exist legally even for those of the gay community and now attempt to ride on the back of what has gone before maybe without fully understanding what it meant, or indeed what it still means to the electorate.
If John Spellar viewed his speech as a 'call to arms' it has failed. A call to arms should be passionate, it should invigorate the listener and inspire them to get on with fighting for what is right. Unfortunately Spellar can not do that because what is there that will inspire? What could he say to invigorate? And when was the last time you heard an MP speak with real passion and, for that matter, real vision?
One line I would love to have explained is 'The fault will not be in our stars but in ourselves'
And as for Tony Blairs moral compass - of course he never had one. But those of us who voted for him first realised this when the Ecclestone affair came to light only 6 months after he got into power. Its been downhill ever since.
Politicians of all parties in the past had, in most cases, personal expereiece
of serving in the military and knew the true horrors and brutality of it. the trouble with the likes of Blair is that they only read about it at school.
calling her "Miss" when I meant of course "Ms", a genuine mistake since I had previously been drafting a letter to somebody else)is that it is NOT just the floating voter, the ex-Tory voter 9whom Blair and Brown et al did so much to ingratiate themselves with, even to the extent of making ministers of some Tory supporters and taking the Conservative Party rejects like Woodward and Quentin Davis) - not just the ex-Labour voter disenchanted with the cioontinual drift to the right that Blair started and Brown is finishing. it is the fact that ordinary working class, CURRENT Labour supporters are now drifting away from the party.
I mentioned to Rachael the fact that Blair squandered goodwill and saw his majority reduced by 99 in 2005. Does she or anyone else imagine that was because the public perceived the party as "left wing"?.
Spellar and others always bring up the imagined spectre of the "hard left" - whatever that is, but if he cared to open his eyes he would note that it is NOT the "left" of Labour that has caused the embarrassment and problems. It is firmly the RIGHT: Field, Blears, Purnell, Hutton, Charlie Clarke, Blunkett etc etc. They are the proble. Did Spellar have words with Hutton for example when he said that Brown would "make a f******* awful prime Minister"?. He might have been right, but that wasn't a remark from a left-winger. You couldn't get much more right wing than Hutton.
Then we look at the weak cabinet we have now - not rteally a left-winger among them: Hilary Benn? Possibly? but that is about it, and you would hardly describe him as "left wing". What is people like Yvette Cooper and Bob Ainsworth doing punching so far abo ve their weight? What do they bring to the job? Cooper is merely Purnell-in-drawers while Ainsworth is a very poor minister who only got lucky when his boss Hutton marched off into the sunset. His talent is so minimal that in a stronger government he would have got no highter than Jockstrap Procurement Minister for the Dept of Culture, Media and Sport (Olympic 2012 Divison).
No all that matters to Brown and Mandelson (which is Prime Minister by the way?) Is that they are on the right of the party and will just carry on the charade till the inevitable drubbing they will get next year.
Just because NL still use the word "Labour" in it's title doesn;t mean
act like zombies and support the sonstant dash to the right. In commerce, New Labour would be guilty of "passing off", that is pretending to be something it plainly is not.
be that as it may, nobody should take lectures from the discredited John Spellar, a man who has always considered himself a bit of a bruiser, who is no better than he should be.
Anyway, if he seems vitriolic he has good reason. There is a still-growing fury among a lot of core Labour voters at not only the Government's direction, but also 1) the apparent inability of some members to understand that fury, and 2) the sanctimony of some members/supporters in responding to complaints. That sanctimony seems driven by the old belief in Labour as the moral, crussading party. For example, earlier Rachael replied to one of my posts thus:
"I doubt that Labour First activists in the Black Country need reminding why a Labour government is important - they've been fighting for it, in and outside the Labour Party, for a very long time."
There is a subtle logic there that suggests Labour's history is what makes its election important - a logic that ignores the diconnect between the current party and Labour's history. And somehow I can't help hearing sanctimonious implication that if I DO need reminding why a Labour government is important, I am less worthy than the Labour First activists in the Black Country. The fact that this implication was probably unintended makes it all the worse, because it suggests that the poster cannot help themselves. Sorry if this sounds over sensitive, but I've felt like this for a long time, and am now sick of it.
I saw in all politeness that Mr Spellar needs to acknowledge that the Government has ignored its traditional core vote for a long time now, but now that the floating voters are deserting, it appears to be saying "come on, we're all still pals aren't we? you wouldn't vote for THAT lot would you? What would your mum and dad have said?" All while STILL passing legislation more right wing than Mrs Thatcher's.
The moral mandate went out the window when Tony Blair began sending British soldiers to get blown up in Iraq. The Government still doesnt even understand the need to rebuild it, and that failure is now risking not only an election defeat but the effective destruction of the party as one of the two main parties. In those circumstances it's a wonder there is isn't even more bitterness on here.
Good for you Old Holborn.
"In 1997 when Labour was elected after eighteen years out of power, there was a sense of hope, an optimism felt by everybody. We had a new modern leader free of the old prejudices who was going to reinvigorate society, the economy and democracy itself. The bitter memories of decent honest hard working people earning less than one pound per hour was going to come to an end. The hopes of the unfortunate families would be realised when thier talented son or daugther would have the same opportunities as those from from privalaged backgrounds. We were galvanised in unity, we had a vision that meant something to us all, we faced the future without fear but with an eager optimism as to where we could take our country.
When in power our young Government faced countless unforseeable problems, from mad cow disease to road hauliers, Sierra Leone conflict to the recent International Banking crises. It has faced these challenges and sought to overcome them and ensure that it leaves a legacy that in the aftermath makes our country stronger. There have been very bitter times when terribly difficult and seemingly unfair decisions had to be made for the longer term rather than for the moment and have cost us much. Thus is this the price of power.
Now we face new challenges as old traditions have to be changed as they have blighted our party along with democracy itself, now more than ever the UK needs us, whether you be an activist, councillor or MP. Now we have to be stronger and more radical, building and rebuilding an economy that must promote innovation, create jobs, using sustainable rather than unsustainable resources for our long term survival, completing finally the constitutionl settlement that is inclusive of all people of Britain, and finally bringing social justice where it is needed most to those who are unfortunate and who suffer through no fault of thier own, only by our common endeavor can we truly make Britain stronger for the present, future and more, for our childrens future's."
There that took me ten minutes, if I were writing an actual speech I would spend hours on it and add more "substance".
I think my main criticism of the John Speller speech is this reliance on an assumption that you can critric the Tories when you have been in power for twelve years. What he should be doing is explaining what he and Labour have achieved and showing a logical next step. You create a picture in the minds of the listener (mine is too short to do that very well), state where the Party has been, state where it is in terms of policy and then give people the vision of where the party is going.
This must be done whatever party makes a speech. It is the consistency of the three parts that will win, you have to show a credible understanding that you knew what you were doing before, doing now and where you will realise your policies in the future context.
During these poor economic times, more than ever do people and members need reassurance and so the last part of the speech needs to show real credible vision as to the direction of your policies for Britian (mine hits on this in a small way, Johns doesn't this). At a time when MP;s are low on credibility the "power" aspect will by implication make people think MP's just want power for themselves. Better to use the term "in Office" as it implies public service with respect to the temp. democratic situation.
I disagree with John's inference that the hard left are sitting back. Many New Labour are thinking of sitting back too, I did seriously consider going on holiday during the General Election, to Italy and enjoy a few glasses of red as the results come in...I still laugh at the thought of it. Many Labour activists left/centre whatever will be wondering whether they should volunteer to continue to enrich thier MP as opposed to help a credible public servant get elected. MP's of all parties beware, you cannot "use" people as you have or take them for granted.
But for me I shall be there knocking on doors...almost come what may.
A call to arms?
A true call to legs- flee while you can!
Macmillan, especially, never forgot the time (pre-war) when he was Member of Parliament for Stockton-on-Tees and the condition of the people in Stockton ; he was instrumental in building houses for the people, gradually removing one of Beveridges 'five giants' : the squalor of slum housing.
Patrician? Yes. People with a deep sense of humanity? Definitely yes. Far removed from today's Tories? Yes, yes, yes.
Although a few 'Victorian values' were still around in the 1950s, the times they were a-changing and Elvis Presley was a catalyst - on both sides of the Atlantic - who hurried things along a bit. I guarantee, the first time that I heard 'Hound Dog' on Radio Luxembourg, it was a life-changing moment because, sure as ess aitch eye tee, the dear old BBC never played such stuff.
The Socialist Party are now start to form a new workers party, which is a response to the fact that New Labour seem to have left this area.
When you read about what is happening in the public sector and the talk of Labour trying to ban strikes in the public sector…… Let me say that again, Labour trying to ban strikes in the public sector. Is that the act of a Labour party, I would say not.
Why would you want to ban strikes?
Anything to do with the slashing that is coming their way, now that the media are push the negative image of the public sector, who are serving the public as best they can, for not much money and currently not much support.
In Unity
MA
A definition of the term "centre-right" is necessarily broad and approximate because political terms have varying meanings in different countries. Parties of the centre-right generally support liberal democracy, capitalism, the market economy, private property rights and the existence of the welfare state in some form. Such a definition generally includes political parties that base their ideology and policies upon Conservatism and economic liberalism.
How would they have prevented the banking crisis in this country?
That is what I would like to know, they would not have had greater regulation, they possibly would have had less!
They whole heartedly believe in market forces, and that is what the bankers were doing, playing the market!
So again, and tell the truth, what would the Tory party have done before the greed crisis, and how would they have dealt with the fall out.
I like the new name, I would have liked to have seen something better!
In socialist Unity
MA
Might be hypocritical of me considering some of my recent posts, but this is an interesting exchange, would be nice if some on topic exchanges remained that way from time to time.
I really do get a little tirted of the precious tone adopted by a few people on here. Tories and anti-Tories
The 'credit crunch', the collapse of 'northern rock' or what?
Sure the american problems may have happened anyway, but it was brain-dead regulation that messed up the UK.
But 'super hero, single handed Brown' can't admit that, so even now is keeping it going.
Which explains a lot. Perhaps since you and Ms Saunders think I am so "rude" we ought to have cyber spankings for those who upset such tender sensibilities, and inflict such upset..
I just get sick and tired of people making excuses for this shambles of a government that has no right to include the word "Labour" in it's title.
After next years defeat, if Labour doesn't return to it's traditional routes, I wonder what they will rename the "product"? New, New Labour, perhaps. or just ToryLite?
Yes I do dislike this government - such as it now is. It is a government, as lamont once said about the 1992 Tory one, that is in office but not in power. power is seeping away ever day.
I don't know if you hautier at my "rude" post Ms Saunders, is real or imagined. Frankly I don't care. I will express myself as I wish, the "Miss" by the way was a genuine slip of the keyboard for which I apologise).
I sometimes think it is a pity that many of the people who post on LL were not alive and politically conscious during the days of the real labour governments of 1945-51 and 1964-70: they would then see through the bogosity of so-called "New labour" and wouldn't be taken in by the pranks of Blairites and Brownites.
What is the next name in the pipeline?
In Unity
MA
Bwahaha. It's the way you tell them TT. What's the punchline?
The Tories wouldn't have had a banking crisis, just like the Republicans didn't?
Or perhaps.
The Tories wouldn't have had just a banking crisis. They would have had an exchange rate crisis aswell, just as they did with the ERM.
Or perhaps even better.
The Tories wouldn't have had a banking crisis. They would sat on their hands and had a full scale 30s style depression.
Why? Because they created the deregulation in 1986 that led to this fiasco. And dominated by financiers and hedge fund owners in their fund raising and organisation, they would have given the bonus boys a bigger break, and follow neo-classical voodoo economics to total oblivion.
You really do come out with some corkers TT. You add to the idiotic gaiety of nations.
Join the club Rachael. Odd that the person you reponded to used the word 'gallantry', since that is obvious by its absence on this and other political sites. Unfortunately, most the culprits (though not exclusively) seem to be men who hark back to some previous image of 50s Britain, where Tories wore Top Hats or Bowlers, and Labour was really a working class party.
My memories of the 70s are dim, but they all come flooding back when I read the brutally pompous, angry and insulting tones used on these blogs. Hence my handle. Better an honest troll than a self deceiving gent.
Firstly, I wrote about landslides over the last 12 years, I didn't say that every singe result over the last 12 years
had been a landslide, although I remember immediately before 1997 the LP would have been genuniely happy with a majority of
50, the incredible numbers in 1997 and 2001 were completely unexpected, and 67 for a third term really isn't bad.
Secondly, please call me by the name I choose to use, I don't know why you would decide to call me Miss Saunders, as it
happens I'm married and I choose to go by the title of Ms Saunders, but generally please do call me Rachael.
Obviously your tone is informed by your general dislike of this government - there's little point in engaging with you on the substantive because you way you write and everything you say is so informed by that dislike, I think you're beyond the point where you're open to debate. I did still think it was worth letting you think I saw your post as unnecessarily rude though, as I woudl reall ylike to be able to discuss politics with people online without everything descending into abuse quite so quickly.
Which specific point in Browns tripartite disaster do you want to ask about?
And the Tory approach to the bank crisis would have been?
In Interest
MA
PS - New week and yet no new name?
Miss Saunders, If you want to rewrite history, you might have the galantry to get the facts right. There were two landslides: 1997 and 2001. In 2005 thanks to Blair playing Bush's poodle, the majority of 166 was slashed to 67 - that is, 100 seats. hardly a landslide. It seems that either voters took Michael Howard's advice "to send a message to Mr Blair" or - more likely - that the true, real LABOUR supporter just couldn't stomach anymore right-wing nonsense from Blair and his cronies.
As for a Labour government being "needed", well, if you have the misfortune to be disabled or ill, thanks to the odious little Purnell falling into bed with Freud (in a manner of speaking) there is little to choose between the two major parties. Or the unemployed, come to that. Remember the "rocking the boat" broach Blears bought for her curtain call. that cost £180. A JSA claimant would have to use up three weeks benefit to pay for that. For the really poor, there is little true difference between the real Conservatives and ToryLite New Labour.
But I don't want to depress you, as you said "At worst we have nearly a year left in power". Well, 10 months. Plenty of time to return to your constituency and prepare...for oposition.
If you want to join Spellar in his optimism - Good luck to you. But some of us have to live in the real world. The tumbrils are coming for Brown and his little gang of right-wing lickspittles, and there will be no Scarlet Pimpernel around to save their dirty little necks.
But if Spellar genuinely belives New labour will win the next election, he is an even bigger fool than he looks.
There would obviously be a lot of detail to trash out, but if we could start with agreeing the principle I believe that the detail would be possible.
Taxation for instance: each country's government could be responsible for its own taxation, with funding provided to the central Government in proportion to the representatives sent. In other words it would be a similar system to EU funding.
I can't help feeling you overreacted a bit to this, Alex. John Spellar was setting out an optomistic reading of the electoral maths to try to motivate his core supporters to go out and campaign. Some people are writing obituaries for this government far far too early, including a very few ultra Blairites and some on the hard left who are still bitter that the amazing landslide victories over the last 12 years proved their analysis wrong. At worst we have nearly a year left in power - you can do a lot in a year, look at the first 100 days in 1997 - and at best there's still a chance we could win again.
I'm not pretending to be an expert but if I was Scottish I would feel (3) unjust given how much of the oil money ended up benefiting other countries - I know there is counter argument that the Scots had and have a lot of aid, but Norway suggests that amount of wealth, properly invested in a small nation, can be transformational. I think it should be up to the Scots to accept the whole package or to go back to how we were. My wife, who is Scottish and, I might add, quite right-leaning, seems quite happy to accept losing tax revenue in order to be independent.
And if we give those powers, independence isn't far away.
The situation can be managed in the other direction still - just.
This brings me to another point. Why is it that the Tories need to earn a greater share of the vote to ensure a majority? That just isn't fair.
I wish that MPs would realise that tribalism and blind marching to the party tune is not condusive to public engagement. I think people dont really care about WHICH party rules the country only WHAT they do. If the Labour party put in place policies which I agree with then I will vote for them. As long as they talk only about what the Tories would or wouldn't do, or what a menace the BNP are I won't.
Not entirely true - set out your services and prices and I will let you know.
(Although, I think I can say in advance, that I don't think your ID card service is going to be of any interest).
Majorities on 3 polls were against:
1 cuts in public funding to NHS, Education etc
2 freezes in wages for public sector workers
3 increased levels of taxation
It seems whilst a significant percentage of the population knows the stupidity of the Labour position and the lies it has been telling over the finances and equally significant percentage of the population have their heads in the sand.
Makes me thankfull I decided not to ever try to represent any of them.
Given the Scottish Parliament now in operation you will of course support:
1 A recalculation of MPs so that Scotland gets a number based on its population ize with no mark up as is currently the case?
2 Scottish Mps not voting on issue in the Commons that are in the control of the Scottish Parliament i.e. English business not voted on by Scots MPs?
3 Tax raising powers given to the Scottish Parliament and hence less English taxes being used to subsidise Scottish NHS and Higher Education funding etc?
A new British Government could then be set up with the English, Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish, Manx(?) governments all sending representatives to it, maybe in proportion to their population, or some other method to ensure sensible representation levels.
I think if we could get back to a service mentality and at the same time ditch the measurement obsession, it could be the start of Labour's recovery.
Where did you get it from?
In whose interests do you use it?
To whom are you accountable?
How do we get rid of you?
Ask Mandelson if you like. Or Blair. Or Brown.
We don't want different politicians nor politicians to be different, we want to be rid of politicians.
Let real people with real jobs, real lives, real experience organise everything.
The idea of service seems a great one, but people dont'[t feel "served" if they feel their freedoms are being curtailed.
I would like someone to explain how, if we had a 4th or even 5th Labour term based upon Scottish MPs and the vagaries of constituency vite distribution, placing the electorate of England under a near elected dictatorship is going to produce any harmony?
As the article points out, the Tory vote in Scotland is pretty low, so what does that tell you about the Tory vote in England? 45% to 50% of the vote in England is likely to be Tory at the next election. You think it is acceptable to have those people permanently shut out of government on the basis of Scottish votes?
If not then this is just spin.
Personally I'm beginning to find the lazy use of the word "progressive" as irritating as the phrase "in power".
Let's not call it power or office: let's call it service. That might change our thinking about the 'why'.
That is the key question. And one to which the mob in Westminster appear to have no answer.
Of course, if they actually risked asking party members (and, even more importantly, former party members), they might not like the answers. I think it's deeply sad - but entirely typical - that those members of the Government who do post here nearly always just put an article in, and don't appear to consider reading or replying to any of the comments: it gives the impression that one-way communication is all they are interested in. And most of us are fed up with being shouted at by the increasingly-hysterical out-of-touch members of the Government telling us that everything is fine, really, and anyway the tories are nasty.