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

[avfc89]

Haha!

?

[Ads]

Its as if the previous two pages never happened.

I've heard your evidence folks, I'm just not going to pay any attention to it.

avfc89 for Labour leader.

[leviramsey]

And national socialism is socialism stripped to its "ends justify the means" barebones without the liberal veneer (in the German case, it's a bit more of a middle class socialism* as opposed to a proletarian socialism... accordingly the Nazis were more willing to maintain a small amount of private property though with the proviso that it could only be used for purposes that benefitted the Reich). Of course, national socialism takes a fair amount from traditional conservatism as well (or at least Hitler was quite happy to claim that national socialism was the culmination of both socialist and conservative thought... funnily enough, he never claimed that it was the culmination of liberal thought (indeed, the argument was that what made national socialism better than previous socialist and conservative thought was that national socialism stripped away the extent to which liberalism had contaminated them))

I'd hazard a bet that if you took basically any Old Labour (and probably quite a few Tory, especially pre-Thatcher) manifesto, stripped out the stuff that there was agreement with the Liberals on, and you'd be left with something rather similar to a BNP manifesto. If you were an Old Labour voter who didn't like the movement towards liberalism (in form of argument if not actual action... though the same charge can just as easily be levelled at the Thatcher-and-after Tories**) by New Labour, the BNP (or complete withdrawal from the electoral system) is basically the only way to go.

*: middle class socialism? does that remind anybody here of any recent parties?

**: which is not surprising... Britain (and England to a greater extent, despite the extent to which Scottish intellectuals shaped liberal thought) is fundamentally liberal in its outlook, even if almost no one votes Liberal.

[avfc89]

Its as if the previous two pages never happened.

I've heard your evidence folks, I'm just not going to pay any attention to it.

avfc89 for Labour leader.

- I'm not denying how "National Socialism" operates as a political machine; I'm just not accepting the BNP as ideal-socialists for the working public. They aren't on the side of the working class people and historical evidence proves this.

[Risso]

I've lived and/or worked in quite a few of the northern towns where the BNP do quite well, and they are all traditional, working class Labour strongholds. Take Burnley for example, traditionally a Labour stronghold in the General Elction, it's also a town where the BNP receive a lot of votes.

I'm equally sure that there are Tory strongholds where the BNP are just as popular.

I'd say it's stupidity, and not party allegiance, that is a common trait in BNP voters.

[blandy]

But that ideal of looking after anyone is one that is left leaning.

The Conservatives, to be blunt and basic (and in some way wrong but lets run with it), tell you to help yourself. The BNP, and Labour (traditionally), say we'll help you. Thats something a traditional Conservative would not, and it's a fundamental aspect of why the BNP is closer to Labour's heartland than the Conservatives.

If you can't accept that... you're just wrong.

No, I don't think by not accepting it, someone is wrong. I feel that there's a distinction missed, Chindie - I always thought the difference was that the left will say "we'll help those who can't help themselves (in whatever area/aspect)" and the Right are more "we'll help those who help themselves"

In other words the left is more about helping the weak, whereas the right (they'd say) is more about helping those who make an effort to help themselves.

Traditionally the tories were much more in favour with the likes of small businesses "who made some effort" for this reason, and Labour were about helping the people who worked for small (and large) businesses, or were unempoyed, because they were effectively powerless.

Of course, these recent times, there's been little difference between any of them - they all just help themselves and sod the rest (apart from anyone rich enough who might be able to give them some money).

[Chindie]

I did say, Blandy, that I was being basic to the point of it not quite being right .

The fundamental point of the discussion, that the BNP bear a closer familial relationship with Labour than the Tories, remains the same - it's just the case.

[blandy]

In declared policy, maybe, but not in followed through reality.

Their fundamental racism cannot be socialist.

To quote John Lydon "No-one should have the right to tell anyone they can't live here because of the colour of their skin or their religion... How could anyone vote for something so ridiculously inhumane?"

If the BNP were ever, God forbid, in a position to actually enact their genuine values, they would pick on the weak, exclude them, deport some, bully and treat them as second class people - that is the opposite of socilalism, which is inclusive.

Whatever their claims on certain issues, the reality is that they wish to discriminate against sections of society based on race. Many of those picked upon will not be well off, and would need to be helped, not hunted down. That just ain't socialist (or Tory). They are no nearer one than the other, whatever they say or their manifesto alleges.

[leviramsey]

Their fundamental racism cannot be socialist.

Define socialism.

wiktionary"]

1. Any of various political philosophies that support social and economic equality, collective decision-making and public control of productive capital and natural resources, as advocated by socialists.

None of that necessarily precludes xenophobic/racist actions. The "social and economic equality" bit could be interpreted as such, but viewed from a national perspective, if one removes all the dark-skinned folks etc., (which is, I think we can all agree, basically what the BNP would like to have happen) then they're removed from consideration.

Anti-racism is a liberal, not a socialist, value. It is one of the issues that many socialists care about, but it is not socialist.

Indeed, it's not a coincidence that the only societies to have adopted socialism (at least of the sort that Old Labour advocated) became intensely nationalistic (which implies xenophobic). State control of the economy can only be achieved by means which the vast majority of socialists find abhorrent (which is why it fell to the Bolsheviks and Stalinists, Nazis, Fascists, Maoists, etc. to implement such control given that they lacked the morals (for want of a better term) of the socialists).

[chrisp65]

.......

I'd hazard a bet that if you took basically any Old Labour (and probably quite a few Tory, especially pre-Thatcher) manifesto, stripped out the stuff that there was agreement with the Liberals on, and you'd be left with something rather similar to a BNP manifesto. If you were an Old Labour voter who didn't like the movement towards liberalism (in form of argument if not actual action... though the same charge can just as easily be levelled at the Thatcher-and-after Tories**) by New Labour, the BNP (or complete withdrawal from the electoral system) is basically the only way to go.

You would lose that bet. It's quite a strain to look for any policies that cannot be judged against Liberalism, but here goes:

a) the BNP would be pro nuclear, Labour were traditionally anti

the BNP would be broadly pro 'our boys' in their attitude towards the military, Labour in the 60's to 80's wasn't

c) BNP is anti left wing unions, Labour never used to be

d) old Labour would've told the Queen to stick her cucumber sandwiches

e) Parties such as Respect, Green, SWP etc offer plenty of alternatives without voting racist grunting mouth breather

f) old labour never denied the holocaust

g) to the best of my knowledge the founders of the old Labour party were never convicted of organising neo nazi activity

[leviramsey]

.......

I'd hazard a bet that if you took basically any Old Labour (and probably quite a few Tory, especially pre-Thatcher) manifesto, stripped out the stuff that there was agreement with the Liberals on, and you'd be left with something rather similar to a BNP manifesto. If you were an Old Labour voter who didn't like the movement towards liberalism (in form of argument if not actual action... though the same charge can just as easily be levelled at the Thatcher-and-after Tories**) by New Labour, the BNP (or complete withdrawal from the electoral system) is basically the only way to go.

You would lose that bet. It's quite a strain to look for any policies that cannot be judged against Liberalism, but here goes:

a) the BNP would be pro nuclear, Labour were traditionally anti

the BNP would be broadly pro 'our boys' in their attitude towards the military, Labour in the 60's to 80's wasn't

I'll grant those

c) BNP is anti left wing unions, Labour never used to be

I'd bet that the Liberals would not be anti-left-wing unions (though may have been opposed to privileging the unions)

d) old Labour would've told the Queen to stick her cucumber sandwiches

Quite possibly a Liberal position... at the very least the Liberals have a long history of opposing royal power.

e) Parties such as Respect, Green, SWP etc offer plenty of alternatives without voting racist grunting mouth breather

f) old labour never denied the holocaust

g) to the best of my knowledge the founders of the old Labour party were never convicted of organising neo nazi activity

[chrisp65]

it is tricky extracting a liberal slant from just about any policy. I was going to try and get clever and mention things like the early 80's attitude toward the re patriation of Diego Garcia and attitudes towards homosexuality etc., but it all comes back to 'liberal'.

yeah, point 'e' was really offering up alternatives to your point on only having the BNP as somewhere non-Labout to go, points 'f' and 'g' I kinda lost concentration due to an earlier incident with a bottle of Morgan's Spiced Rum.

all good stuff though

I'm on a works laptop right now so I have to resist logging any time on BNP or SWP style websites to dig a bit deeper on this. They don't mind a little bit of lovely ladies thread coming up in the history, but no heavy politics.

[snowychap]

points 'f' and 'g' I kinda lost concentration due to an earlier incident with a bottle of Morgan's Spiced Rum.

Ha ha.

I'm on a works laptop right now so I have to resist logging any time on BNP or SWP style websites to dig a bit deeper on this. They don't mind a little bit of lovely ladies thread coming up in the history, but no heavy politics.

Do you work for Peter Stringfellow, Chris?

[LJRM050389]

So I think now that all the nominations and hustings are now done with, we soon get votes sent out to us. So for those who have a vote ( and those that don't) how will you be placing them 1-5

1 Ed M

2 Ed B

3 DM

4 AB

5 DA

Reallt want Ed M to win over his brother, with DM becoming shadow Home Sec and Ed Balls shadow Chancellor!

[avfc89]

I also prefer Ed Miliband.

[tonyh29]

Can anyone seriously see one of those 5 as a future PM ? ....I've got more chance of winning than Ed Balls

The next Labour leader is pretty much resigned to Election defeat so you'd almost be better of standing down this time around and backing a rival , though appear loyal and gracious as you do it

then bide your time and plot in the background until your time is right

[drat01]

Absolute bunkum Tony - Who would have thought that Cameron would have made it to number 10?

On what do you base your (imo wrong and somewhat arrogant) assumption that a Tory win in the next election is a certainty. The polls certainly don't indicate that and this after only a few weeks of Cameron in charge, unless of course they continue with their changes to the constitution to deny them bveing voted out

[tonyh29]

Who would have thought that Cameron would have made it to number 10?

well I did , so as my track record of picking PM's is pretty good I feel I'm qualified to comment on the merits (rather the lack of ) of the 5 candidates :-)

nowt to do with arrogance , Labour made themselves unelectable (funnily enough through their own arrogance ..is arrogance the new hypocrisy :winkold:)

The Labour party needs a few years in the wilderness to rediscover itself and what it stands for ..

[snowychap]

how will you be placing them 1-5

1 Ed M

2 Ed B

3 DM

4 AB

5 DA

1 Ed Miliband

2 Burnham

The other three.

[avfc89]

Who would have thought that Cameron would have made it to number 10?

well I did , so as my track record of picking PM's is pretty good I feel I'm qualified to comment on the merits (rather the lack of ) of the 5 candidates :-)

nowt to do with arrogance , Labour made themselves unelectable (funnily enough through their own arrogance ..is arrogance the new hypocrisy :winkold:)

The Labour party needs a few years in the wilderness to rediscover itself and what it stands for ..

David Cameron wasn't officially elected with a majority. I personally believe this is a great opportunity for Labour to repair and reconcile. I certainly won't rule them out winning the next general election.