Bringing back Clause 4, Whats in it for us? Options

[GMR]

Don't write them off completely, they haven't abandoned all their 'Neu Labour' principles. We'll be seeing the next generation soon; the likes of Stephen Kinnock, the Benn sires, Daivd Prescott and even the Blairletts. We are still an aristocracy, and even the people's party know that.

It might not be about "abandoning" their principles (or at least some of them) but image. Corbyn's image is old labour and that won't appeal to middle England. On top of that their fist priority will be to win back Scotland, and that won't be an easy task. Then we can add boundary changes to that equation, which will make it almost impossible for them to win the next election in 2020, oh, and did I mention that while Labour will have an old face running their show the Tories will be electing a new face for the next election.

[GMR]

I think the future is coalition, or at very least ministerial secondment. Running a country is homogenising I feel. Remember the old adage: elections are not won; they are lost. It just needs the Tory sleaze to come back, or the economy to slip. Good governance also relies on a lot of luck. Labour were unlucky with regards the banking crash (and the Tories lucky it didn't land on their watch). I think Alistair Darling was heading in the right direction before the Monster Raving Tories were handed a go. Talking of Monster Raving Tories; Petra and the Blue Rinsers have been quiet for a while? Good drying weather?

And don't forget Labour's sleaze.

[On the edge]

And don't forget Labour's sleaze.

Does that have a different fragrance to the LibDem or Tory sleaze? I've always thought the expression 'we are all in it together' referred to this.

[Simon Kirby]

I like the idea. I think the government and opposition should be different not both trying to be popularist. The Labour Party should be the Labour Party, regardless of whether they think they can get elected or not. Work on the policy, and then promote it. They' e got 5 years after all!

I couldn't agree more. I hope Corbyn gets elected. I don't share Corbyn's politics, but at least he has some, and the right-wards lurch in British politics desperately needs balancing. Labour should represent Labour values, and if no one wants to vote for that then fine. I would like to see a much greater separation between the Tories and Labour to make some space in the centre ground for Liberal politics and a credible centrist party to emerge.

[On the edge]

It might not be about "abandoning" their principles (or at least some of them) but image. Corbyn's image is old labour and that won't appeal to middle England. On top of that their fist priority will be to win back Scotland, and that won't be an easy task. Then we can add boundary changes to that equation, which will make it almost impossible for them to win the next election in 2020, oh, and did I mention that while Labour will have an old face running their show the Tories will be electing a new face for the next election.

Five years is a long long time. Following what usually happens, the SNP is simply a flash in the pan. Indeed, the cracks are beginning to show even as we speak. Some of the loudest SNP stalwarts were disillusioned Labour supporters; disillusioned with Nu Labor that is. We also have an underlying level,of discontent, right now manifest in the northern conurbations, but also growing in the formerly industrial Midlands. Yes, the Tories have noticed, hence the Northern Powerhouse guff. However, five years out?

[Andy Capp]

And don't forget Labour's sleaze.

I don't forget it but the electorate are stupid; it is one one of the problems with a democracy.

[blackdog]

I too have a hankering for a genuine Labour party, but don't really share Simon's optimism that a powerful centrist party will evolve. Corbyn economics will keep Labour out of power until at least 2025, by which time Corbyn will be long gone (I do wonder he will last until 2020).

[GMR]

I couldn't agree more. I hope Corbyn gets elected. I don't share Corbyn's politics, but at least he has some, and the right-wards lurch in British politics desperately needs balancing. Labour should represent Labour values, and if no one wants to vote for that then fine. I would like to see a much greater separation between the Tories and Labour to make some space in the centre ground for Liberal politics and a credible centrist party to emerge.

But what is Labour's values? Shouldn't a political party evolve and move when society changes? Values change, to stay as one was created is just asking for disintegration and oblivion. Even the term working man has evolved. Most now regard themselves as middleclass.

There is nothing wrong with both parties at the centre ground, it is not just about policies, but application of those policies. The only time parties have won is when they've operated in the centre ground. Labour had to move to Thatcher's territory to be accepted by the public on whole. When Labour has moved left it virtually destroyed itself. Electing Corbyn will only make sure that the Tories are in power for the next 10 years or more.

[GMR]

Five years is a long long time. Following what usually happens, the SNP is simply a flash in the pan. Indeed, the cracks are beginning to show even as we speak. Some of the loudest SNP stalwarts were disillusioned Labour supporters; disillusioned with Nu Labor that is. We also have an underlying level,of discontent, right now manifest in the northern conurbations, but also growing in the formerly industrial Midlands. Yes, the Tories have noticed, hence the Northern Powerhouse guff. However, five years out?

The SNP might be a flash in the pan, but that flash will last for a lot more years to come. And even if the do loose some seats in 2020, they won't get wiped out.

[GMR]

I don't forget it but the electorate are stupid; it is one one of the problems with a democracy.

True.

[GMR]

I too have a hankering for a genuine Labour party, but don't really share Simon's optimism that a powerful centrist party will evolve. Corbyn economics will keep Labour out of power until at least 2025, by which time Corbyn will be long gone (I do wonder he will last until 2020).

As I asked Simon, what do you call a genuine Labour party? A party that represented bygone days? Days that have long gone? If Labour wants to regain power and be genuine, then it must be genuine to the present, not the past.

[blackdog]

As I asked Simon, what do you call a genuine Labour party? A party that represented bygone days? Days that have long gone? If Labour wants to regain power and be genuine, then it must be genuine to the present, not the past.

A party that represents the working man, supporting him against exploitation by employers. The sort of exploitation that is rife these days - zero hours contracts, the predominance of part time jobs at minimal wages, suppression of union rights, etc.

They lost their way in the determination to win power at all costs - turning into a 1960s Tory party may have served Blair well, but I'm not that sure it helped the working man or woman at all well.

[Andy Capp]

A party that represents the working man, supporting him against exploitation by employers. The sort of exploitation that is rife these days - zero hours contracts, the predominance of part time jobs at minimal wages, suppression of union rights, etc.

They lost their way in the determination to win power at all costs - turning into a 1960s Tory party may have served Blair well, but I'm not that sure it helped the working man or woman at all well.

We have to face one fundamental principle: we either have more low pay jobs or fewer jobs with better pay and conditions. The global economy will not permit more jobs with better pay. Automation follows expensive labour.

[blackdog]

Automation follows expensive labour.

Not in the boardroom.

[On the edge]

Not in the boardroom.

No, but we haven't got so many of those these days; far sighted government has made sure our firms are owned overseas. Good job too eh?

[GMR]

A party that represents the working man, supporting him against exploitation by employers. The sort of exploitation that is rife these days - zero hours contracts, the predominance of part time jobs at minimal wages, suppression of union rights, etc. They lost their way in the determination to win power at all costs - turning into a 1960s Tory party may have served Blair well, but I'm not that sure it helped the working man or woman at all well.

Who is the working man nowadays? Most are now classified as middleclass. One of the problems with Ed was that he kept banging on about the working classes (which he wasn't) and they said, who are the working classes? If you are talking about low paid employees, that will never change unless one gets a better education. We've had lower paid workers right through the 40s, 50s, 60s and to the present, under all types of governments and colours.

You talk about exploitation, but most of the union leaders are on over £120,000 per year. Those that went on rail strike were on £50,000 per year, hardly poor or working class. As for zero hours contract; that has been around for years, under all types of governments. It suits some, but not others. The problem isn't abolishing it, but making sure that the unemployed are not forced into taking such jobs. In a free country employers can ask what they want. And finally; without power then parties can't represent anybody and when out of power then they surly have lost their way.

[GMR]

Not in the boardroom.

If we want the best, and the best companies in the world to park their bus on our drive then we can't dictate what they earn or what they pay. In the 70s the Labour government targeted the rich, the rich left and we were regarded as the poor man of Europe. It wasn't until Thatcher came to power that we started becoming one of the richest and powerful countries in the world. You are talking as if you want to go back to the days when the Labour government had to go cap in hand to the IMF. Look at every down fall in our history since the second world war and you will find it was caused by a left leaning Labour government.

[On the edge]

Personally, I don't give a **** if we aren't 'rich and powerful' as a nation, why should I be? I'd be quite content if we were on a par with say Sweden, Denmark, or dare I saw, even France. There is no advantage for Joe Average being as we are, in fact he just gets kicked around rather more.

[Simon Kirby]

As I asked Simon, what do you call a genuine Labour party? A party that represented bygone days? Days that have long gone? If Labour wants to regain power and be genuine, then it must be genuine to the present, not the past.

Sure, if it's power you're after then you have to follow the votes, but if it's principles that are important you have to stick to 'em even if no one at all votes for you. Politics isn't football, you don't fill your team with foreign players just because they'll score more goals.

And I'd have no real problem with the Labour party disappearing if its members were deserting it because, like me, they no longer believed that Socialism was an effective means of achieving their social aims. What grieves me is that people have deserted Labour (and for that matter the Liberal party) because they no longer give a chuff for a social conscious and they've gone over to the self-serving and fear-mongering right. That's both miserable and dangerous.

[Simon Kirby]

Personally, I don't give a **** if we aren't 'rich and powerful' as a nation, why should I be? I'd be quite content if we were on a par with say Sweden, Denmark, or dare I saw, even France. There is no advantage for Joe Average being as we are, in fact he just gets kicked around rather more.

Yup, that's me too.