RobertSnozers wrote:Rednorth wrote:RobertSnozers wrote:
Those staunch labourites Ant and Dec voted Tory in 2010, and in the same article they said they could not see Miliband as PM, they also rubbished Cameron. Today we have the Church of England, the so called 'Conservative Party at Prayer' openly attacking a Tory PM. Which of those do you think is more significant?
Yesterday you were complaining that all Labour did was announce policies. Those policies are the results of the policy review. Two documents have been published on the review, One Nation Economy and One Nation Society. They're online, look them up. It frankly doesn't take much research
They voted Tory for the one and only time in 2010 after a lifetime of voting Labour and describing themselves as 'staunch Labour'. Allow them one lapse, do, this isn't the Petrograd Soviet. Despite disliking Cameron and not wanting to vote Tory again, they couldn't see what Labour were offering.
I didn't comment on the Church of England. I don't see the point's relevance here. Is it more important than Ant and Dec, frankly I doubt it given the habits of today's digital congregations, but even if it is, so what? it's not going to vote Labour, and that was the point of my post.
To say I complained that all Labour did was announce policies is a silly simplification of my post. I complained they released policies without (seemingly) a coherent overall narrative, and that the presentation of those announcements was piecemeal and amateurish.
My question about the policy review was rhetorical. The review was trumpeted at the time as signaling a new direction for the party in the wake of Blairism. For it to live up to that and impact on the party's election prospects it needed to be consistent, substantial, and profound. It should have been the moment when the party shifted the focus on to its core policies, and announced in suitably grandiose fashion, not a daily dribble of policies to a backdrop of reheated 19th century one-nation Tory slogans.
After a few posts, I see this forum is somewhat tribalist and less interested in discussing Labour's election prospects and how they could be improved so much as a back-slapping echo chamber. By all means carry on. Despite the kind of global capitalist catastrophe that was supposed to usher in an epoch of socialism, the nominally left wing party can't scrape together a decent election poll lead.
After the election, slapping yourself on the back will be all that's left. Sadly, many of us will be picking up bodies as a consequence.
Forgive me for trying to debate this, but over the last few weeks you've made a series of posts which are basically rants against Labour, largely without any substantial facts or sources to back them up, and which largely follow the Tory/rightwing press presentation of Labour. I'd love to see suggestions about how Labour could break through, and I don't regard the party as perfect by any means - far from it as I think my lengthy response to you yesterday testifies.
As to the point about Labour releasing policies, I don't recall the exact words but it was something along the lines of 'it's just piecemeal policy announcements'. This was presented without any context or evidence as to exactly what you were talking about. If you want to do that, fine, but you weren't giving much to work with. I argued that this wasn't entirely piecemeal yesterday and again this meme follows that of the rightwing press - they used to say 'Labour has no policies' and when that became patently untrue they started to say 'Labour has a mess of policies that don't hang together'.
The point about the church was to counter the importance that Ant and Dec seem to be being afforded. This is the established church, led by people who sit in the upper chamber of parliament, and they've made the first open intervention in politics since 1985. Keep banging on about Ant and Dec if you like. Bear in mind they were first eligible to vote in a GE in 1997 so a 25% record of voting Tory hardly constitutes staunch Labour, considering that nearly a third of the electorate still managed to find it in their hearts to vote Labour in 2010.
I'm happy to discuss Labour's election prospects - what I won't do is blandly agree with a one-sided post that's just shouting about how crap the party is.
Evening to everyone, especially the newcomers (even Hugo.....)
Bit of a long absence (been visiting my local HSBC branch in Geneva.....only kidding, although my wife has her pension with one of the big private banks - it was the only one who could do the transfer under QROPs. They do very nice cakes though....)
Anyway I digress, I thank Robert for his post above as I too am perplexed by this continued wittering of those of the supposed left about the Labour Party
The points I would like to make are
No-one, I repeat no-one who considers themselves 'staunch Labour' would ever vote Tory. LibDem (pre-Clegg), Green, SNP etc I can understand but the Tories - never!
I can understand some people buying the MSM narrative but that is because they are not intellectually curious enough to understand what is at stake and what the fact are. People who do this are entitled to their view but had also better be ready for a bit of a hard time if they share those opinions with people who do have this knowledge
I, personally, am a Miliband fan - and to be honest in UK Politics under FPTP we have a choice of Labour or the Tories - there may be a coalition that helps to improve the policies of one or another but is it a risk worth taking? Some voted LibDem not believing they would ever throw their lot in with the Tories, and what games would the Greens or SNP play in reality!
I would ask RedNorth what he would prefer over a Labour Government in 2015, even if his suppositions are correct? A continued Tory Government because that is what you will get?
I would also ask him to reflect on where he gets his views on Labour from? RobertSnozers has provided links that suggest his dismissal of Labour's policies is premature and that there is substance and narrative there. Not perfect you can be assured but not the disaster him and the Cool Britannia brigade (who seem only to have voted for Blair and Cameron - hardly a great example of socialist credentials) make them out to be.
I would ask him also to think of why, if Miliband, is so poor the media and the wealthy are so worried about him? Why will Cameron not debate him? Perhaps it is because they are scared that he may actually challenge the right-wing consensus in Government for the first time in 35 years (discounting a few years in the Blair time before he went a bit mad)
I am sorry if I am coming across a bit short-tempered but sniping like this gets me a bit fed up - mainly because it is lazy and has not back-up. If you, and others disagree ideologically with the Labour Party then fine but think on that a petty and lazy decision the consequences will be 5 more years of the most heinous, ill-principled, vindictive, corrupt, empty and vile Government we have ever seen (worse even than Thatcher in my view) and I for one will not be at all happy with people who bring that to be!
I was scratching my head wondering what Vince Cable had to do with my post. I'm glad you made the link so I don't have to think too hard 
