Labour is behind in the polls at home. Well there’s a statement of the obvious. But let me state another obvious truth. The Prime Minister’s leadership on the international stage is widely recognised. Only a few weeks ago he was feted as a world statesman and he has been praised for forging the agreement at the G20 summit in London earlier this year.
That’s why my jaw dropped in disbelief this morning, as I belatedly watched William Hague’s speech on television. The shadow Foreign Secretary claimed that the Tories “reject the strategic shrinkage of Britain’s role” and accused Gordon Brown of diminishing our standing in the world. Although Hague is one of the House of Commons’ best performers, even his oratorical skills could not carry off this line with any credibility.
Have the G20 summits in London and Pittsburgh completely passed Hague by? Did he manage to miss the series of accolades given to Gordon Brown from a wide spectrum of international thinkers and statespeople?
The Nobel prize-winning economist Paul Krugman recently described the Prime Minister as the man who may have "saved the world financial system”. Henry Kissinger stated that Gordon Brown’s “leadership has been essential to our ability to overcome the moment of danger”.
Has Hague not noticed our Government’s global leadership on climate change? Both the Prime Minister and our Climate Change Secretary, Ed Miliband, will attend the Copenhagen Summit and are actively preparing the groundwork to ensure that the conclusions are concrete, meaningful and ambitious.
Has Hague really failed to see the damage that he and Cameron have inflicted on the Tories’ reputation in Europe as well as within the Jewish communities here and abroad? Given the column inches generated by the row over the Tories’ anti-semitic and homophobic bedfellows in the European Parliament, Hague didn’t even mention their Polish and Latvian friends. A bizarre omission.
The Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, has the Tories banged to rights on this issue. Tory Chairman, Eric Pickles defended their alliance with the Latvian ‘For Fatherland and Freedom’ Party (whose members commemorates SS Legion veterans every year) on the basis that the Latvian Wafen-SS were conscripts and therefore had no choice. However as Jonathan Freedland points out, a substantial minority of the Latvian Wafen-SS were not conscripts but eager volunteers including veterans of pro-Nazi death squads.
We should be deeply concerned about the damage that the Tories would do to the UK’s international standing. To use Hague’s words against him, there is a real and palpable danger that a Conservative Government would “shrink” the UK’s strategic importance in the world.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
You mean like not signing treaties with evryone else but doing it in private days later?
I like LabourList but the proportion of sensible article to meaningless "the Tories will do something wrong if they win" articles is about 2:10.
Are Labour already in Opposition? They act like it.
There is no logical reason to continue this - we cannot afford it nor have any reason to wish to play this role
Both Brown and Blair are respected abroad, but ultimately I think that should not be a priority other than as part of the EU
As you say, he did express concerns in '98, then proceeded to tell us what a great chancellor he was without doing anything about it. Unfortunately for him it all caught up when he became PM, so he dug deep into the public purse, nothing more.
What precisely did he do globally that was so awe inspiring? Other than the £550 billion (and again, with no strings attached) what exactly did he do that sorted out the worlds economy? Seriously Ralph, if I'm wrong about this then correct me, but given the economic circumstances there should have been much more thought before cheques were written or banks were nationalised.
Its like the claim that government is helping businesses, they are not helping businesses at the moment because for every good policy for business there are a good few bad policies. And the government have failed to get finance moving properly for businesses which has already seen many good businesses go to the wall because of cashflow problems and non-existant overdraft facilities.
We've had this discussion a few times now about what Labour have done that has benefited the country, but unless you can expand on GB writing some cheques, he isn't the saviour of the financial world for doing anything particularly spectacular. He just used someone elses money to throw at the private sector to prop it up for bad decisions made by very greedy profiteers.
I wouldn't hold your breath for politicians who will plan properly for the future because if we do end up with a Conservative government, it looks like their sights are set on a short term pecking policy which sounds like tough love at the moment, but it won't resolve things like job creation, the soon-to-be energy shortages or even when we can bring our troops home from a war they can't win.
Bill, come on, think about the issue before you start ranting about Brown. The entire country depends on the banks and the movement of money. Not only money for your wages and the stuff that goes into the till at your local supermarket, but also to fund business. When a business pays its workers does it have a big pot of cash in the finance department? No, it usually pays them through a short term loan from the bank that is paid off in the following month. If a company exports can it do so without the use of a bank? No. It needs to pay the shippers with something, and along the line the shipper will need to pay people in local currency and hence someone has to change the money. If a company wants to expand can it do it without support from a bank? No. Even a extremely profitable company will have to take out a loan for re-tooling, buying raw materials and paying wages of employees while the new products are being made.
We cannot survive as a nation without a working finance system and without the liquidity of money. So can you now accept that the banking system had to be saved, because only an idiot would disagree.
As to simply "signing a cheque" well, that is a stupid statement. Brown and Darling put in force a plan to prevent the finance system from collapsing - and more importantly - to keep money moving. Their action has been copied by economies around the world. It was a huge decision and most people could not make it - Cameron certainly is not man enough, he opposed the actions every step of the way. The swift action by Brown and Darling showed other economies that the actions could work, and so they too followed the lead from this Labour government. The world does owe the recovery upon Brown's actions.
Is it GB who should be thanked around the world or the British people for allowing £550 billion of our public monies to be given to the privately run financial institutions without strings, without conditions and without any realistic view of ever seeing that money again?
My original question to you was what did GB do other than write £550 billions worth of cheques - so Ralph, what precisely did he do personally to 'save the world'?
I don't think he saved the world...that is nonesense the World will outlast us all. I just think it was the right policy...however!
In some other countries like S.Korea the banks have been smarter in working out where to place the money to bring the economy back to growth.
Sadly we are stuck with an uncreative establishment who seem to understand only two concepts.
Greed and Fear.
The money given to the banks (Chris Cook describes better than I can) is not reaching the real economy. So we are stuck in the same scenario as if the policy did not actually exist.
The banks made it not exist.
But the General Idea Internationally was right. GB's greatest problem is that he and his pals still fear and worship the banks.
The banks will have to pay up eventually and return the money given to them. Cameron knows this, hence his point in his speech that "the hard fight" will be worth it.
We will all have to bust a gut to make this happen of course, so there is actually no difference in the polices as both Labour and Conservative will have to use us to help the banks pay off the debt created by the banks and poor limited scope regulation.
This is my entire point. A trained chimpanzee can be taught to sign things, so again, what did GB do that was so amazing? The timing of his actions was dictated by circumstance and I as remember we had a tense few days while he dithered. And before anyone jumps on that statement, he was dithering because clearly he wasn't making arrangements for the money given to the bank. He added no conditions, so he was dithering for a few days.
I don't give a rat's behind what the Conservatives would have done, that is purely academic to this discussion as the Conservatives were not in office and had no rights to make any decisions. But GBs actions on the lead up to this crisis, the actions he took during the actual crisis and his lack of teeth to bite the problems caused by the crisis, it doesn't add up to Statesman of the Year to me.
In fact, it doesn't add up to Statesman and I am still waiting for someone to challenge me with a reasonable argument on this. Why is GB held in such high esteem when all he actually did was sign a cheque to the banks?
I genuinely want to know and I want someone to prove I am wrong with my assertations. Anyone up to the challenge using simple English that will not confuse the issue?
The point is that a cheque needed to be signed to the banks and Brown signed it. Moreover, he was the first to do so, at a time when no-one else was taking the action he did; the received wisdom in the newspapers and elsewhere was worse than useless; virtually no other proposals were on the table except nationalisation (which on Planet UK Politics is unacceptable), and most people - particularly the Tories - were running around with their heads up their policy arses.
Trained chimps require training, and no-one trained this one. He actually did the necessary himself.
Having said that, Brown should have extracted far more from the banks than ever he did, but then he never asked my advice :-)
So the blunt of it is GB was the first to write the cheque. On that I will commend him for being the first to do so and history will probably teach that it was the correct action for the time, but as you say, GB was in a very strong position when he had hold of that cheque. He could easily have used the time he was deliberating (that sounds so much better than dithering) over whether to do it on coming up with a even the most basic of regulation and more importantly a viable repayment plan.
Am I right in assuming that once the banks recieved the money it took around 6 months to settle things down and sort of level the books? I know it is much more complex than that, but I'm trying to keep this simple.
If I am right, why couldn't GB have offered the money on the basis that bonuses would cease for a period of 3 years and percentage of profits after the first 18 months must be returned to the Treasury?
Nice and simple, no complications and if the banks didn't earn the cash, they wouldn't have it to give it.
I understand the very basics of consumer credit so I realise to come up with agreements within the individual banks would have been difficult to push, but surely a guarantee of not withdrawing overdraft limits to businesses should have been in there as well? That would have stopped many businesses going to the wall.
As I say, I realise I am being very simplistic about this, but if GB is to be our Statesman of the Year, I wanted to clarify exactly what it is that he has done to deserve such an honour. I would ask the same about a certain Nobel Peace prize winner, but I believe Alex may garote me for that one.
"If I am right, why couldn't GB have offered the money on the basis that bonuses would cease for a period of 3 years and percentage of profits after the first 18 months must be returned to the Treasury?"
Without getting into the debate 'GB good vs GB bad', I think that there was so much happening and so much to decide over the weekend that the potential belly-up of the whole of the UK banking system was being discussed, it is not surprising that a few details were missed, one of these details, you will all recall, being the matter of Freddie Goodwin's pension arrangements.
Of course, we four think, nay, know that the level of remuneration in the finance business is outrageous and undeserved. It was a question of priorities with 'the markets' (a pitiful bunch of chumps - thanks, Peter M) gasping for an answer to an unprecedented problem that they had created in the first place.
All the £multi-million brains added together in the private sector had no answer and it was £six-figure brains that stopped the fire spreading and it is this that I find frustrating : Labour will not, as far as I can see, take the steps that are really required to bring these parasites to heel.
I had a quite practical and workable solution six months earlier, but the press wouldn't print it, the politicians wouldn't listen, and professionals and consultants paid by the hour, rather than the outcome, have no interest in simple solutions.
Labour will not, as far as I can see, take the steps that are really required to bring these parasites to heel
That's where I'm more optimistic than you, Peter, because I think it's quite possible to simply route around the parasites.
Despite the wrongs of the whole business MP's were not willing to challenge the fountain of wealth.
"Despite the wrongs of the whole business MP's were not willing to challenge the fountain of wealth"
MP's only follow the 'people' and despite a lot of us on the left having reservations on what was going on I did not see a massive uprising in the 'people' against the City.
Therefore no way was any politician with power going tos peak out or legsilate and only Cable did because he was never going to be in power.
Am I right in assuming that once the banks recieved the money it took around 6 months to settle things down and sort of level the books? I know it is much more complex than that, but I'm trying to keep this simple
It wasn't just the money, Bill, it was the guarantees the government put in place across the system.
So basically, the patient has had all his visible wounds incurred in the crash sewn up and they've healed nicely.
The problem is that the patient is still bleeding away from all the internal wounds he also suffered - and having to receive regular transfusions of QE to keep him stable.
The patient needs a major operation, Bill, and Gordon hasn't the skills, while Surgeon Cameron is waiting outside with a bucket of leeches, plus a wire brush and dettol - old Billy Connolly joke - couldn't resist...
If I am right, why couldn't GB have offered the money on the basis that bonuses would cease for a period of 3 years and percentage of profits after the first 18 months must be returned to the Treasury?
On the right lines, Bill, I think. I proposed - in the case of Northern Rock - that the Treasury should put in fresh capital as a capital partner alongside the Northern Rock shareholders.
A Northern Rock staff cooperative would get a proportional share of the net interest income, and the investors would share the rest proportionally to their investment, and also share any defaults proportionally as well.
As for new credit, well that's another story. But it's not Rocket Science.
...and that Chris would have been an excellent move and well timed both in the long term and shorter terms.
You could have sold the idea to the public with ease saying that staff and share holders can both benefit from the situation (thus setting an example at a time when people need to work together) whilst as a major investment partner ensuring any necessary reforms can be implimented. After all as we witnessed it was both staff and shareholders who paid the price for poor regulation and management at the end of the day (notwithstanding the impact on the economy as such).
However GB and Darling did not. They had little time to act, they acted on their primary impulse to not offend the banking sector whilst trying to distance themselves from privatisation.
Then they had to distance themselves as much as possible from their old freinds, the managers.
It's still there to do, especially now.
Plus I have a nice line in business development for them, which is sorting out all the poor sods with the toxic Northern Rock high(insane, even) loan to value mortgages.
The employees should do a staff buy-out.
Your not wrong, in fact your policy here would do a great deal of help to address many issues at the same time.
1) Definitely radical (people need something new.
2) Something healthy - builds co-operation and teamwork which helps address identity and community issues.
3) Shares the wealth a bit more...always good.
4) Makes units of the economy stronger as they are not dependent on individuals or singular investers.
There are many more, obviously, but I think I can say you have my agreement at this time.
Good to see someone gets it :-)
I do not argue that the banking system would have collapsed without intervention, intervention was entirely necessary and forgive me, but I need no lesson on economics or business from you, I am quite capable with the limited education I have of deciphering the basics of the situation. What I do argue, and strongly argue is that signing a cheque is exactly what GB did. To dismiss this as a stupid statement is disingenuous.
Please tell me what the conditions to the £550 billion were Richard? Tell us all here on the LL exactly where in the discussions over the money paid to the financial institutions where the electorate was put first? What are the repayment terms to the money handed over? Where is the regulation 2 years on to stop it happening again?
I realise I am being spectacularly unfair to you Richard because you can not realistically answer those points without making yourself appear naive. I apologise, but when you go on the attack, perhaps it is you who should consider what you are talking about. As I stated below, neither you nor I was in the Treasury at the time of these discussion over the propping up of the banks, yet you presume to be an authority on the subject when you are speculating much in the same way as I am.
The difference is I can offer clear evidence that there were limited, if any conditions added to the money given to the banks which in my view means that GB did precisely what I said he did, he wrote a cheque. That may be far too simplistic for you, but unfortunately it is the truth and the whole truth when you speak in plain English. The only favour the world owes is to the British people who have gracefully, albiet begrudgingly, accepted the fact that our future pensions and public services will suffer for the incredible greed of a few, politicians included. Or do you think GB used his own money to bail out the banks Richard?
One more thing, unrelated to this particular comment, but more so the comment you made earlier asking me to withdraw my statement about what the world thinks of one James Gordon Brown. Could you tell me what the perception is of our Prime Minister in Iceland? Do you think the use of anti-terror laws against the Icelandic people was justified during the crisis Richard?
What I will withdraw is my complete ignorance in recent comments where I named our Prime Minister as Gordon James Brown when in fact James is his first name. For this I apologise without reservation.
Now Richard, do you think you might possibly reply to me in future using a civil tone and perhaps even stretch to being polite? I realise I am being hypocritical as I often do argue with vigor and offend those I reply to, but I have the good grace to apologise and not to continue the insults.
I don't need to tell you the details because you are as capable as anyone to find them out. The bailout was in preferrential shares in the banks (owned by UKFI) and they are *assets* which means that eventually they will be sold off to release the capital and pay off debt. So that is a huge chunk of the 0bn you quote.
Now Richard, do you think you might possibly reply to me in future using a civil tone and perhaps even stretch to being polite?
Oh dear I have struck a sore nerve of some kind. I do not suffer fools gladly. I will always give you the respect you deserve - so please start earning it.
You've yet to convince me, likewise with Chris that GB thought this through, that he had a plan that put the electorate first and the assets in the bank? I'd suggest you read some of what Chris has to say on the matter as those preferrential shares are unlikely to bring anything back to the Treasury in a hurry.
You haven't struck a nerve Richard, but you can't help yourself though can you, now I'm a fool apparently.
Feel free to carry on Richard, I'm sure you can think of many other ways to insult me rather than arguing a valid point. You've yet to tell me what was done by GB other than signing a cheque and as Chris pointed out, being the first to do so. Until you can, spare me the hot air, the insults and the uninformed view.
As for any respect I may or may not deserve, get over yourself Richard, you're not an authority here. An unkind person might reply that you are simply living up to your name, but then I am not unkind, so I won't.
Our lovely lovely banks:
Continue to withold credit and make borrowing difficult.
Continue to pay themselves obscene amounts of money in bonuses.
Continue to reward themselves for failure.
Continue to fight tooth and nail in the courts to carry on ripping off their customers over bank charges.
Continue to act as everything that has happened has been their natural god-given right.
Continue with the exact same saystem that failed so spectacularly.
Quite right except
Continue to withold credit and make borrowing difficult.
Unfortunately the banks are making the correct decision in the circumstances.
It's not just the banks that are skint, it's the borrowers. That's why we need the systemic fiscal reform I bang on about.
However one comment which is undeniable from people is that GB did in fact reside over our role as a mojor financial centre in the whole business. GB himself clearly stated that he was concerned about this situation back in 1998. Why then as PM was nothing done?
A contingency would have been good, not necessarily in the one mentioned by the Conservatives. But an economic plan to add more diversity to our economy.
Only now is GB talking about innovation and a Centre for Technology to promote this (I have written comments and an article regarding this).
He was the Chancellor, the economy was essential to his role and he did not do enough to add to it.
He is, I believe, the man to get us out of this mess, but we could have gone into this collapse in finance with some seriously globally competitive infrastructure and technology to export to help bring some economic growth for the long term.
When are we going to have MP's who really can plan for the future of our country?
You said
"However one comment which is undeniable from people is that GB did in fact reside over our role as a mojor financial centre in the whole business. GB himself clearly stated that he was concerned about this situation back in 1998. Why then as PM was nothing done?"
this for me as always been the key. Greenspan was warned, Brown knew, the BofE knew, the Fed knew, Vince Cable knew !!
so why did it get so far ?
The reason is simple, people wanted the profits, they paid the tax we needed, The people enjoyed the benefit of loans to people who could not afford it.
The whole thing was built on human greed and no politican in power of any colour would have wanted to stop it because the people would not have liked it. The basic problem those of us on the left face is when it comes to material things the majority want it and to suggest we stop them and win elections is impossible. Even if what we say is good for them in the long term.
If in 2005 we held an election based on tax rises, interest tax rises, restriction of the City, does anyone think we would have won it ?
Unfortunately, however, the media are not interested in reporting and discussing the facts without prejudice, or Gordon Brown would get the credit (as well as the discredit) he deserves.
The best way to retain influence on the global stage is though being part of the most powerful economic bloc on the planet - the EU. Its evident the US under Obama wants to talk to Europe as a whole, not pursue a 'divide and rule' policy as Bush did. Tory reluctance and stubborness towards the EU will only seek to exclude the UK not only from wider EU decision making, but also global decision making.
The only problem is that Europe doesn't hear us; doesn't take any notice of us; and goes it's own sweet way,driven by the French and Germany. The only way that we can be said to lead Europe is when we working out which way they want to go; run on ahead and then shouting "follow me lads!" If we oppose the European dream they don't listen to us so there's no point in being within Europe fighting our case. It's pointless.
Whether or not GB managed to save the (financial) world, he has done so whilst neglecting the British people. A few economists might hold him in high regard, but he is a laughing stock with people around the world and thats before we even start with what the armed forces think of him.
And please, leading the world on climate change. You may as well be saying we lead the world on fairy dust and chocolate fireguards. I'd get onto to the finer points about Ed's plan and how much damage it will do to Britain over the short to long term, but you've already lost interest because I'm disagreeing strongly with you and I don't believe the spin.
And if the strategy is to brand the Conservatives as friends of Nazis as a means to winning the next election, you're failing really rather badly. Or would you like me to begin listing some of the dubious contacts Labour has, singling out individual politicians and who they have done shady deals with over the past few years? Thought not.
Tell me Emma, how many countries have come out of recession? And is Britain one of them? I wonder how Britain could remain in recession when the man who resolved the world's financial problems is leader of the country? Puzzling that one isn't it.
The one redeeming feature of your article is the mention of Ed and concrete in the same paragraph. If we're going down the environmental damage route, there are some rather prominent Labour figures who have spoken out against the proposed eco-towns because of the excessive use of concrete. That is rather odd isn't it? Its almost as if Ed doesn't know what he is on about. I'm expecting him to carry on with his whole "The floods in Britain are down to climate change - the desertification in China is down to climate change" again because it always good for a laugh to see a politician so far out of his depth he is drowning in his own lies.
You could've written an article on the way the Conservatives are going to hack into the welfare state and cut benefits to those in need, but unfortunately Purnell beat you too it by announcing it as Labour's plan a while back. Inheritance tax, that should be a good one to bash the Conservatives with, if only Labour didn't have the same policy. And wage freezes, those nasty Conservatives, they deserve a fisking and you could if Darling hadn't got there first with his wage freeze announcements.
There has to be something you can provide that Labour is going to do that is actually really interesting and good? Something better than namecalling the Conservatives? Surely there is. GB said there was in his speech, I've yet to see it filter out onto the LL. All I see is the grasping of straws that the electorate will not buy and playing a very silly game of cat and mouse by saying that Labour have done something good in certain areas when they haven't.
Whether or not GB managed to save the (financial) world, he has done so whilst neglecting the British people.
Gosh this is such a wide statement I really cannot address all the issues it raises. But think about this. The British economy depends on a working finance system, if the finance system collapses then no one will have an income. No one. So saving the finance system is important to every Briton. Brown's actions were precisely for the British people. If you spent a little more time thinking through the issues you will avoid making silly statements.
he is a laughing stock with people around the world
This is purely unfounded and spiteful. If you insist on making statements like this you have to back it up with actual citations. If you do not have any references then I suggest that you withdraw this statement.
GBs actions may well have inadvertedly saved many problems for the British people, but please don't try and kid me he did it for the electorate. If he had, he would have written the cheques with conditions that put the electorate first, not the bankers and financial institutions. He was given a choice of how to deal with the situation, and yes, it kept the banking system propped up but the system hasn't changed, it could happen again. In addition, because of GBs handling of the situation the banks can carry on raking in the profit now after their little blip, because GB gave them no consequences.
I have no need to withdraw the statement about him being a laughing stock at all, because he is. A female soldier in a recent press conference mocked him, no one complained, they all understood what she was getting at and laughed heartedly. Now I could spend my day searching for that video, but I'm not going to. Likewise I could find numerous other videos and articles, but again, what would be the point? You've made your position clear and I'm unlikely to change your position no matter what I produce as evidence to backup what I'm saying. If you would prefer to brand me a liar, that is your choice, but I'm not spending a day gathering evidence just to convince you what a huge number of the electorate, the armed forces and others around the world already know.
Now with reference to how much time I spend thinking, I spend a good deal of time thinking. One thing I think about a lot is whether I will ever fully support Labour again, as in support the leadership of the Party. You may percieve my view as 'silly' but I submit to you that it is my opinion, my belief and as a British citizen I believe I am still entitled to free speech when it comes to my beliefs and opinion. Unless you were actually in the treasury at the time, you can not give me cast iron proof of the deals that were done and for that matter, neither can I. So essentially we are both speculating on what GBs intentions were. You are on the side that he did it for the nation, I'm airing towards the fact that he hasn't a clue about finances, wrote cheques without thinking it through properly and has now run out of ideas to move the Party forward.
Now when you've quite finished insulting me by insinuating that I am spiteful or just plain silly, maybe you can take the time to read the gist of my post which is that Labour currently have very little room to talk on a number of issues. They fail to communicate, so much so I am half way through writing an article on the very subject which I hope Alex will publish. I may come across as a ranting madman, but I want Labour to mean something to the British people again and I'm afraid that will not happen with the current policy set and the current leadership.
Feel free to disagree, but just because I am Labour minded does not mean I will keep my temper about what this government has done in recent years. Where they deserve praise in my opinion, I will say so, but when they get it wrong, I will also say so. The days when politicians automatically deserved respect has gone, it is my opinion that they have lost their honour, can no longer be trusted and need to be brought to account over their every wrong doing.
If you think I'm rough and unfair with a Labour government, just wait and see what happens if the Conservatives get in. I may disapprove of attacking the Conservatives at the moment whilst Labour should be trying to communicate and open a dialogue with the British people, but if the Conservatives get into office I'll highlight every undemocratic, ridiculous and unfair policy they come up with and publish every inch of corruption I find out about. Neither Labour or the Conservatives are above the law, they are not the elite, they are in office to serve and protect, to govern the will of the majority and to ensure our nation runs effectively. Politicians should remember that and so should everyone else.
You monologues are quite tedious and repetitive and your vocabulary is Bercowesque.
Feel free to disagree with me, but you are becoming a little tiresome yourself now Richard. I've been commenting rather heavily over the past 24 hours, so it looks as if you will have a busy day.
I will answer your point though Richard. Quite why I should change my political beliefs because a group of self-serving individuals take over the Labour Party is a question I'm sure only you are qualified to answer, but if you take a look around the LL, it is a widely held view by many former Labour voters.
Please stop being petty, it doesn't suit you.
We support the fair policies Labour has brought in, but PLP Labour lost the centre ground and the traditional ground deservedly.
It is not a case of the "looney left", or those like yourself who have been accused of being "conservative" when you have asked questions that have made some feel uncomfortable.
This Labelling helps nobody and is symbolic of the over the top counter attacking that blights the party at the moment.
Since leaving the armed forces and returning to South Korea I am surprised at the sheer lack of long term policy. Not just from Labour but the Tories as well. We are great at Environmental Targets that are meant to be met in the never-never (50 years time for example), but not so hot on policies, long term that can do this.
Where is the economic infrastructure and plan for the future?
Instead of creating the institutions and using our considerable education base to place our country as a leader in New Technologies (over the last 25 years, Labour or Tory) so we can export our own goods we have a vacuum. Many talented students leave our shores to in the States or elsewhere, even politicians like Blair send their children to the States, while the Kinnocks fix jobs in the EU for their children.
Nowhere is their a real faith or even understanding displayed for their own country's economy. Cop-out politicians with Cop-out policies sucking up to those who in a Global Economy are still very much our competitors.
In the Global Economy countries ARE competing and to dilute our National Role is utterly ridiculous.
So I agree with you. I think most of the British public do to. Politicians have to earn the respect back, I am gutted that Conservative MP's are leading the way with a pay cut and by example, agreed many have money of their own, but it is a symbol that will resound with many, many people. They won't forget it either.
Labour PLP from the very top, right across the Cabinet, were ALL warned what was going to occur. They were informed by a mere activist who wasn't even in the country (and who had nothing to gain from this) that in the interests of serving their people AND saving their own precious reputations and jobs, not to mention taking a potent advantage over the Liberals and Tories with a view (not a full guarentee) to having a chance to win the next election.
They refused to listen to a mere mortal who had their best interests at heart. Even now I find it incredible.
How many people in the UK would not try and save their job when it pays at least 65k?
The consequences as we have all witnessed have been bad, but for Labour terrible. For the PLP to be able to walk away from this will no doubt be the most disgraceful event in Labour Party history.
What is worse is the number of "famous" Labour names who have used their positions to get jobs with the very companies that are supposed to compete fairly for a Government Contract (competition - a very important economic factor) and ensured said companies are rewarded with a subsequent contrct.
So lets be clear, they don't respect or understand the market as they claim as they attempt to clumsily assert their "center" credentials, they use to feed their corruption.
They don't understand ordinary decency or they would have taken the cut back then in April.
They don't understand democracy or in fact the Constitution because they introduced undemocratic BNP to mainstream politics as they disgusted their own supporters into not voting.
They don't understand recession and the impact on the lives of their Constituents (I would then assume they don't understand anyones pain for that matter) that they are supposed to represent in Parliament.
They don't understand what the country needs for a real economic future.
They don't understand the truth - redacted expenses etc
They don't understand...
This is not an attack incidently, it is conclusion based upon the actions of the PLP. Our actions after all define us.
So Bill I think everyone who visits this site is fully entitled to question the Party in Parliament and the anger is totally justifiable. I do not doubt I shall be seeing plenty more this afternoon.
For those who question me I say this. I am here for the Labour Party now and I am going nowhere. People like me are not armchair critics we are battling to find the strong platform to defend the party and to try and help people recognise the problem is curable, but he have to rid ourselves of the very thing which is hurting the whole Labour Movement.
Many commentators moan about people "doing down Labour", we are not doing this, we are not, Bill the ones turning people away in their millions from voting Labour. We are if anything are attempting to discuss the problems and send messages to those who read from this site that action must be taken for the sakes of the Labour Party.
When I am on the doorstep I am and always will be encouraging people to use their local councillors/MP's and make sure their elected rep. does their job, but I do and always will perhaps beleive that the Labour Party is truly the party of the people, even if it has been let down by weak leadership in Cabinet.
There are a large number of people who come here to the LL who are very critical of articles here, but they remain and I would imagine always will, Labour-minded. Understandably angry, which you have eloquently explained above, about the expenses, the wars and the general policies that have been exposed and given during the reign of this government, they reply with anger, they bite back.
My argument to those who think this is unjustified is similar to my argument on many subjects, this is what a democracy is all about. We are meant to argue, we are meant to disagree but most of all we are supposed to listen to the majority view. Labour listened to the majority view for the early part of the 20th century and were successful as a result, but like the Conservatives of the late 80's and early 90's, Labour has ceased to be the voice of the majority. It now champions the minority views or even just the views of individuals, which although at times is entirely necessary, as a rule it is unwise to do on a wider scale as Labour becomes detached, distant and I will say it, unfit to govern.
Those who would deny the Labour minded, or anyone else for that matter, a voice to give our full and frank opinion should question themselves whether they are indeed Labour minded. Democracy is supposed to be at the very heart of Labour. Fairness and equality are strong reasons to vote Labour, but the most important is democracy. Without it, Labour would not have won a single election, the voice of the many would have been drowned by the few and this journey of over a century in politics would not have been possible.
Conversely is the Labour Party leadership fail to bring some democracy back to its policy, unless it listens to the electorate and really listens, there will no longer be a voice and many would argue, especially with the dire financial situation the Labour Party finds itself in, there will no longer be a Labour Party.
No Labour Party = No voice at all for the Labour minded other than to shout at the sidelines of a Conservative and Liberal Democrat run Parliament. Well worth remembering this next time you don't listen to people's opinions and at the very least take them onboard.
I may well have lost faith in the leadership, but I haven't lost faith in the people here, especially Ralph who I know will work very hard for the people of this country and will not be sidetracked because of greed, corruption or the benefits of office. We need more people like Ralph who will be very critical when it matters, we need more people who will question the people who deem themselves elite and it would seem it is down to the very people Labour have abandoned to see that Labour returns to what it should be.
GB is clearly a laughing stock in this country, you could say that comes to all PMs eventually and you don't have to look far back to Blair, Major and Thatcher etc but he does seem particularly gifted at it.
Thanks Gordon, you are not my hero.
You know the one - the party of those cuddly socialists, Stalin and Mao, who between them were responsible for over 50 million deaths.
This is the extreme hypocrisy from the Left - and I wish the media would balance out these vicious attacks from the likes of Miliband - who comes from pure Communist stock.
Perhaps he could give us names & sources instead of bandying weird allegations around.
Hhmm bit rich from the party of draper, mcbride, mandelson, campbell, etc, etc.
"You are being silly again. No one has said that the Tories have SS sympathisers on their front bench. The accusation is that they associate in Europe with organisations that have SS sympathisers."
Wow, you're like a steel trap, aren't you? Sharper than obsidian, this boy.
So every time a Labour minister goes on TV, and mentions the words "Tory" and "SS" in the same sentence, they are not trying to subliminally associate the two together? It's like the BBCs obsession with the "far right" - it's never the "far left", is it?
You have to grow up regarding these issues. The Labour party long, long ago ditched any decent principle it ever had. All it clings to now is an increasingly desperate plethora of personal attacks and smears. Ben Bradshaw is the latest example - a hollow, witless apparachik who thinks high debate is a ludicrous set of rants on Twitter.
Like I said in another post, Attlee and Bevan would be utterly disgusted by the current Labour party. Truly they would.
As for Gordon Brown, it's pointless slagging him off anymore - it doesn't matter. The public KNOW exactly what he is - a spineless, grasping, dishonest, deeply cynical automaton. A man who did not even have the guts to call an election - when he probably would have won it. Yup, a man of REAL character.
First, the Milibands are the sons of a marxist academic but I wasn't aware that the views of one's parents were genetically transmitted
Moreover, have you never heard of Euro-communism? The journal Marxism Today? The influence of Gramsci? Much of the CP who were affiliated to the Eurocommunist wing were in many ways precursors of reform on the Left, as they saw a place for non-class related equality and the role of the social movements. They were refreshingly non-sectarian. When many finally abandoned the CP , largely linked to the fall of the Soviet empire as the brand, even in its Euro version, was fatally damaged, and joined the Labour party, their views were clearly aligned to the soft left, never the hard left, and many continued their reformist journey and became New Labour followers
Its daft to think that the Euros ever supported Stalinism.
And who exactly of the current front bench was an active Communist of any variety?
If the Tory front bench had any link - no matter how tenuous - to a party affiliation with say, the Nazi party, or Mussolini's Fascists, then it would, quite rightly, be exposed.
Now, many Labour front benchers either did have - or still do - Marxist and Communist sympathies.
All I am saying is that two regimes which purported to be Communist helped to purge - deliberately - millions of people.
You can't have it both ways.
And many Tories are unhappy with that, they do not like the situation either, but are keeping quiet for the duration of the lead up to the general election. But whoever wins at the next election you can be sure that Europe will suddenly become more important in the Tory party. Let's hope that the moderates win that battle, and that the Tories move back to being a mainstream right-of-centre party and associate themselves with reasonable conservatives like the German CDU.