Next leader of the Labour Party should be.....

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

Diane Abbott is just saying what the left wants to hear, I'd bet my house on her not going through with the majority of her policies. Why? Because there is too many vested interests in the party (and the other parties) to allow someone to simply scrap Trident etc.

[Ads]

Indeedamous, I have a scale. Liebour was funny once. It wasn't the hundredth time. The thousandth? I fell out of my tree.

By the same token, one monkey once- that's alright, two okey dokey, steady now. Three, well, you get the idea.

[drat01]

But as Balls said you have to cover more than one "camp" and set of ideals. There is nothing wrong in that way of thinking. At least a lot of the ideas and principles are aligned, unlike a couple of parties one of which is now engaging in political cuckold.

A far right wing party is never going to succeed in the UK and likewise a far left is not going too either. There is a key word and that is leaning, which way and how far does a political part lean. Too far and it topples over

[Ads]

Ball’s policy would be to the detriment of the Labour Party. You cannot breath life back into the core by being all things to all people. A choice is necessary.

[drat01]

Disagree 100% with that. Again its about the level to which you go. Cameron is a case in point, the Tory party when he wanted to become leader was in a complete and utter mess. He along with Ashcroft's (tax fiddled) billions successfully put up a case for making the party at least semi-electable. The problem they have is that underneath that fascade is a far too right wing way of thinking which was evident in the last election and kept many people away from them - hence the lack of a majority

It's not about being all things to all people its striking the right levels to maintain that balance. As said a left of centre balance is perfectly acceptable to many within the party and within the UK electorate

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

I personally don't think it's a matter of leaning but a matter of how many money men's pockets will a party fill.

If a slighty more right wing party turned up and promised tax cuts aplenty for the rich, allowed some big companies to do x & y out in the country and tickled the medias collective bollocks then it would be hard to stop them winning an election. By the same token if a slightly more left wing party turned up and promised pay rises aplenty to the unions, give some big medical companies deals to produce more goods for more hospitals and again dined with the right media men it would be hard to stop them also.

Peoples ideals are generally fickle (I mean, the average person). They will sway from left to right as the environment allows. Which is why for the most part I am skeptical about how much influence a parties ideals really have on an election when in comparison to the shady deals done in the background and how much backing they have from the city/unions and the likes.

Which is why parties should be abolished, or at least the modern trend of parties. However as ideal as it is to have clean politicians free from corruption, human greed will always succumb to a fat waving cheque. So I don't really know a true alternative to the current party system aside from the usual, partially effective donation caps and the sorts.

[bickster]

But as Balls said you have to cover more than one "camp" and set of ideals. There is nothing wrong in that way of thinking.

And here we have it in a nutshell, there is everything wrong in that way of thinking, everything wrong in that attitude. How the hell do people know where they stand when politicians can claim such an attitude. Its rubbish, mealy mouthed duplicitous rubbish. You can't believe in two things on the same subject at one, you can't have more than one set of ideals. Thats the politics of the desperate, it used to be the domain of the Liberal Party, the party that would say and do anything to buy a vote but it seems to me that all three parties have become completely duplicitous and none of them deserve any respect as no one really knows where they stand with any of them any more

They all just about say anything they think they can get away with these days, the days of having conviction politics are gone

BIAD

[bickster]

It's not about being all things to all people its striking the right levels to maintain that balance. As said a left of centre balance is perfectly acceptable to many within the party and within the UK electorate

When you analyse the Labour Party's actions when in power they were not in any shape of form left of centre

[Ads]

Disagree 100% with that. Again its about the level to which you go. Cameron is a case in point, the Tory party when he wanted to become leader was in a complete and utter mess. He along with Ashcroft's (tax fiddled) billions successfully put up a case for making the party at least semi-electable. The problem they have is that underneath that fascade is a far too right wing way of thinking which was evident in the last election and kept many people away from them - hence the lack of a majority

It's not about being all things to all people its striking the right levels to maintain that balance. As said a left of centre balance is perfectly acceptable to many within the party and within the UK electorate

Right wing in which respect? Economically, socially? Both?

If Labour want to survive, then they must reach out to their core. I’ll stand by what I and the good people at the left wing think tank I was chatting with were saying. They must tack back to the left. Short term opportunism, which is essentially what Balls is advocating, won’t benefit the party if the core disintegrates.

[drat01]

If Labour want to survive, then they must reach out to their core. I’ll stand by what I and the good people at the left wing think tank I was chatting with were saying. They must tack back to the left. Short term opportunism, which is essentially what Balls is advocating, won’t benefit the party if the core disintegrates.

I just don;t see how that corresponds to your previous statement or how that previous one aligned itself to what Balls is saying. Let's look at the polls at the moment, considering that most people know that the next leader will come from a bunch of 5 and probably 1 out of 3, and considering we have just had a very long time of them in power, to then get such a rating in the polls shows that they are not a million miles away from what the electorate want, and probably a lot closer than the Tory party and their backers want.

To lurch to some extreme is not what the party or the people want, you see that time after time in elections. UK politics in reality is about shades of white, sometimes they prefer the warm pink and occasionally they like the cold reality of a bit of blue :wink:

And here we have it in a nutshell, there is everything wrong in that way of thinking, everything wrong in that attitude. How the hell do people know where they stand when politicians can claim such an attitude. Its rubbish, mealy mouthed duplicitous rubbish. You can't believe in two things on the same subject at one, you can't have more than one set of ideals. Thats the politics of the desperate, it used to be the domain of the Liberal Party, the party that would say and do anything to buy a vote but it seems to me that all three parties have become completely duplicitous and none of them deserve any respect as no one really knows where they stand with any of them any more

They all just about say anything they think they can get away with these days, the days of having conviction politics are gone

BIAD

And your way of thinking has no part of a modern world. Who says you believe in two things? No one - except for those like you who can only possibly see some sort of anti-establishment ideal. The truth is there for all to see that want to see it in that the UK population are not radical they are centrist. You can easily argue that good old British values and sense of fair play are more centre left than anything else.

BIAD - is just a silly idea and one that really should be consigned to the same threads as hover cars and MON signing players before the season starts

[avfc89]

I think the last few pages on this thread answers your question Bickster.

They show a humourless response from you and an immediate partisan defence of the Party with an anti-Tory jibe rather than a giggle at the jape. Presumably your quest for serious debate involves flaming the fires of partisan loyalties?

Don’t think I didn’t notice it before your clickety-click ascent up to Mount Olympus to pour scorn on the mortals toiling below. With their fun and their internets. Its just not serious enough!

If you’d have laughed or not commented, then you could have got back on to talking about the coronation of David Miliband before you could say clause IV.

Ads - You can keep attacking my views and personality, it isn't the first time you have done this and it won't be the last.

I think your the perfect example of partisan loyalty. I know where I stand on my political issues and I will argue my views against any political party, I can assure you the Labour party doesn't butter my bread, can you say the same about yourself?

[snowychap]

They all just about say anything they think they can get away with these days, the days of having conviction politics are gone

Indeed, there are very few conviction politicians any more.

Hopefully, soon, there'll be a few convicted ones.

[snowychap]

BIAD - is just a silly idea ...

It's a darned sight more sensible than most of the nonsense that emanates from political parties.

[Ads]

I just don;t see how that corresponds to your previous statement or how that previous one aligned itself to what Balls is saying

That’s your problem not mine. Balls is worried about a shift back to the left because he feels it would lessen Labours chances at 2015. Its short term thinking and opportunism, because if Labour is to survive then it must reconnect and reinvigorate its core voters and then build a new voter coalition who will be able to support them in long term. The Lib Dems have made this easier for Labour to do, buts it not cut and dry either.

Nobody is suggesting an extreme view.

I know where I stand on my political issues and I will argue my views against any political party, I can assure you the Labour party doesn't butter my bread, can you say the same about yourself?

Labour has never buttered my bread either. If you cannot see how daft your argument was over the previous pages, to firstly steam in with all that “pathetic” “no class” stuff and then moan about the lack of seriousness, then that’s your issue.

[avfc89]

Ads - It wasn't daft, it was genuinely how I felt when I was viewing the thread, I saw the usual rubbish from the same culprits. You then made a personal claim that I was humourless and self righteous, it seems you don't like others to have an opinion which isn't compatible with your own view.

As I've said my bred isn't buttered by Labour, I can disagree with their policies and have an independent view on policies, can you honestly say the same about the Tories?

[Ads]

Yes.

[bickster]

And your way of thinking has no part of a modern world.

What sort of daft expression is the "modern world", its meaningless. Sorry for being ahead of the game

Who says you believe in two things? No one - except for those like you who can only possibly see some sort of anti-establishment ideal.

I presume there are words missing in the first sentence but "people like me who can only see some sort of anti-establishment ideal" used to be called Labour Party members

The truth is there for all to see that want to see it in that the UK population are not radical they are centrist. You can easily argue that good old British values and sense of fair play are more centre left than anything else.

I predict that the population may well just turn to being a bit more "radical" again soon, no one gets off their arse when the goings good, this is very true but with this lot in power, radicalness will return and where will their traditional champions be? yes thats right doing lunch and talking shite

BIAD - is just a silly idea and one that really should be consigned to the same threads as hover cars and MON signing players before the season starts

Well as we've established that I'm anti-establishment (not entirely true btw) and thus by the very nature of the jibe that you aren't, you would say that wouldn't you.

Changing the fundamental principals of this countries politics, so the government works for the people not against it, is not a silly idea, its a fantastic idea. Abandoning party politics is really a goal worth achieving, it is the entire party system that has dragged this country to where we are now and you're a prime example of that Ian, you think politics is like supporting a football team (sorry but thats how you come across in these topics, blind allegiance), it really shouldn't be like that, it should be about doing things for the right reason, not because the bloke in charge said we do this, so we do it his way. Politics is more important than following team orders, or it should be

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

Party Politics is like Omid Djalili. Initially he had a bit of promise, but after a while it got tiresome. Now we only stick with him because it's either him or some bloody northerners filling up our comedy clubs.

Kinda.

[wiganvillain]

But as Balls said you have to cover more than one "camp" and set of ideals. There is nothing wrong in that way of thinking.

And here we have it in a nutshell, there is everything wrong in that way of thinking, everything wrong in that attitude. How the hell do people know where they stand when politicians can claim such an attitude. Its rubbish, mealy mouthed duplicitous rubbish. You can't believe in two things on the same subject at one, you can't have more than one set of ideals. Thats the politics of the desperate, it used to be the domain of the Liberal Party, the party that would say and do anything to buy a vote but it seems to me that all three parties have become completely duplicitous and none of them deserve any respect as no one really knows where they stand with any of them any more

They all just about say anything they think they can get away with these days, the days of having conviction politics are gone

BIAD

A true, honest and factual analysis of Polictics in the UK today.

The only time the words true, honest and factual can be used in a political context

[drat01]

But for all that fanciful idealism and anti-establishment that Bicks says, the reality of this modern (ir current) world is that it wont change, especially to the state he wants

Yes it would be great if there were no political parties, yes it would be great if marketing spin, tax avoidance dollars and dodgy contributions and influence were eradicated but I know that will not happen, and like it or not we have to live with it for the foreseeable future. No other country has that idealistic state that Bicks talks about and just because he does not want to accept it aint my problem its clearly his