has there ever been a lamer labour leader than ed miliband?

[treelover]

Remember when he won the 2005 general election campaign for Michael Howard?

that was before NL began its intensive media campaign to smear claimants, unemployed, etc the ground has been laid.

 

[butchersapron]

So what? And anyway, that started on day one in 97 -what was their very first measure? Single mothers might remember.

Weird this, that after OMG the scores are level, today/tmw they (guardian) choose to lead with Wintour fronting this see...see...warning piece

Labour must shift policies or risk ruin, says Len McCluskey

It's naked.

 

[butchersapron]

Could they make it any more obvious? Balbi, you get a pass, articul8 - welcome to the labour party.

So this summer he has to find a persuasive alternative vision to the one Mr Cameron began to sketch out in the Commons yesterday. The Tory leader's list of successes, inaudibly subtitled "don't let Labour ruin it" – the repatriation of Abu Qatada, a small improvement in unemployment, populist changes to benefits, a hint of a hint of a recovery – will send his backbenchers off for summer in better spirits than they have been in for a while. Labour has to keep in on a conversation that, to Mr Miliband's credit, he has sometimes effectively anticipated. His "squeezed middle" narrative is more and more relevant to millions of voters who are in work but underemployed, who rely nervously on cheap credit, and worry about their pensions as inflation starts to bite into stagnant wages. It's important that voters feel he understands their problems. But he is still a distance off inspiring confidence that, against sustained Tory attack, he can do the right thing about them. In that context, the historic reconfiguration of his party's relationship with the trade unions that Mr McCluskey has precipitated is a vital test in a much wider arena than the Labour movement, for it is Mr Miliband's opportunity to show a capacity for leadership that voters currently doubt.

 

[SikhWarrioR]

Sorry but for this EX-labour member and voter the rot set in with the demise of John Smith and the arrival of the grinning spinning blair, gordon "lets bail out the banks prudence" brown, mandelson and the rest of the nu-labour tory clones. the nulabour of ed miliband and co is just carrying on with the nightmare legacy of the grinning spinning blair who of course carried on the horrors of their mentor the now thankfully dead great bitch thatcher so I for one see no reason to buy the nu-labour bullshit of miliband anymore than i did the nu-labour bullishit of blair and co

 

[Delroy Booth]

well for this ex-labour member the rot really set in around Arthur Henderson's time.

That "dead great bitch thatcher" line made me wince.

 

[butchersapron]

Sorry but for this EX-labour member and voter the rot set in with the demise of John Smith and the arrival of the grinning spinning blair, gordon "lets bail out the banks prudence" brown, mandelson and the rest of the nu-labour tory clones. the nulabour of ed miliband and co is just carrying on with the nightmare legacy of the grinning spinning blair who of course carried on the horrors of their mentor the now thankfully dead great bitch thatcher so I for one see no reason to buy the nu-labour bullshit of miliband anymore than i did the nu-labour bullishit of blair and co

What on earth did you think it was pre-blair?

 

[DotCommunist]

well for this ex-labour member the rot really set in around Arthur Henderson's time.

That "dead great bitch thatcher" line made me wince.

i voted blair the first time I was able to exercise my right to do so. With the fatefull words of my nan ringing in my head 'well you must vote for who you think will do best by us all, but remember the tory party only ever look after rich people and not the likes of us'

what a fucking mug I was

 

[ViolentPanda]

The Lansley healthcare reforms were shambolic and unpopular, and yet to fully play out, and I think that the Labour lead over the last 2 years is in part down to public fear about what the Tories are going to do with the NHS. The Tory strategy pre-election of showing how much they love the NHS has been abandoned and they're just trying to denigrate the NHS instead. It could totally backfire, it might actually convince the general public you can't trust the Tories with the NHS .

I had my bi-annual "review" at my surgery yesterday (being a sickly bastard, it's twice as frequent as for "healthy" folks), so I discussed my meds regime with the doctor, and we made a few small alterations to dosage and type that should help me sleep more easily and wake in pain with less frequency. I jokingly remarked that I bet the hot weather meant few patients, to which she replied that although that was the phenomenon she'd experienced in her ten years as an inner London GP, it didn't hold true this time, as the depth of poor media coverage about the NHS seemed to have caused a spate of "panic booking". In her words: "people are so scared that this is the end of the NHS, that they're booking appointments to get stuff treated that they'd normally have left, coming in and saying about how much they love the NHS".
So, it's possible that the "backfire" you talk about is already in train, with regard to people noticing the coalition approach, noticing the negative effects, and realising you can't trust these cunts.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Sorry but for this EX-labour member and voter the rot set in with the demise of John Smith and the arrival of the grinning spinning blair, gordon "lets bail out the banks prudence" brown, mandelson and the rest of the nu-labour tory clones. the nulabour of ed miliband and co is just carrying on with the nightmare legacy of the grinning spinning blair who of course carried on the horrors of their mentor the now thankfully dead great bitch thatcher so I for one see no reason to buy the nu-labour bullshit of miliband anymore than i did the nu-labour bullishit of blair and co

The rot started with Kinnock purging the party of anyone but the yes-men. Once there was no organised hard left in the party for the rest of the party to blame/steal ideas from/react against it all became about becoming an "acceptable" (i.e. non-socialist) alternative, and given that most of Kinnock and Smith's "up-and-comers" were Atlanticist and pro-neoliberal, it was obvious that the party would move rightward. What wasn't known until Blair's leadership was just how far to the right, and just how savagely Blair's generation would re-write the party rules to disempower the membership.

 

[nino_savatte]

The rot started with Kinnock purging the party of anyone but the yes-men. Once there was no organised hard left in the party for the rest of the party to blame/steal ideas from/react against it all became about becoming an "acceptable" (i.e. non-socialist) alternative, and given that most of Kinnock and Smith's "up-and-comers" were Atlanticist and pro-neoliberal, it was obvious that the party would move rightward. What wasn't known until Blair's leadership was just how far to the right, and just how savagely Blair's generation would re-write the party rules to disempower the membership.

Yep, 1985 was the dawn of the new stage-managed Labour Party conference where dissent, if it was tolerated at all, was confined to the fringes. Today's Labour Party is the product of years of effort (interference in the party's internal mechanisms and smears*) on the part of the Tories to force them to move rightwards, which was helped in part by the weakness of its leadership.



* qv. Zinoviev Letter and Reg Prentice de-selection scandal.

 

[SikhWarrioR]

The rot started with Kinnock purging the party of anyone but the yes-men. Once there was no organised hard left in the party for the rest of the party to blame/steal ideas from/react against it all became about becoming an "acceptable" (i.e. non-socialist) alternative, and given that most of Kinnock and Smith's "up-and-comers" were Atlanticist and pro-neoliberal, it was obvious that the party would move rightward. What wasn't known until Blair's leadership was just how far to the right, and just how savagely Blair's generation would re-write the party rules to disempower the membership.

You mean the same windbag kinnock who did nothing in the miner's strike then later scuttled of to brussels on a nice fat salary??

 

[butchersapron]

You mean the same windbag kinnock who did nothing in the miner's strike then later scuttled of to brussels on a nice fat salary??

So how did the rot set in with smith then?

 

[ViolentPanda]

You mean the same windbag kinnock who did nothing in the miner's strike then later scuttled of to brussels on a nice fat salary??

Yes, that cunt.

 

[nino_savatte]

Kinnock advised everyone (especially dissenting Labour MPs) to pay their Poll Tax.

This was a massive open goal and Kinnock (like so many other Labour leaders) refused to shoot.

 

[barney_pig]

Seems the police consider there is no evidence to investigate into the 'irregularities at Falkirk. Any chance of millibars being prosecuted for wasting police time?

 

[Grandma Death]

The most depressing thing about the entire welfare benefits debate is its a debate the tories are winning. Its their new 'law and order'.

Just like immigration the whole debate has become one of anectodes, half truths and downright lies. It's all been exacerbated by the media, the labour party weakly limping behind and parroting the same sort of nonsense.

 

[Grandma Death]

The rot started with Kinnock purging the party of anyone but the yes-men. Once there was no organised hard left in the party for the rest of the party to blame/steal ideas from/react against it all became about becoming an "acceptable" (i.e. non-socialist) alternative, and given that most of Kinnock and Smith's "up-and-comers" were Atlanticist and pro-neoliberal, it was obvious that the party would move rightward. What wasn't known until Blair's leadership was just how far to the right, and just how savagely Blair's generation would re-write the party rules to disempower the membership.

I shook his hand at an eve of election rally at Pontllanfriath Leisure Centre-it was my first ever chance to vote and I told him I was proud to vote for him. Course I was fucking young, stupid and naive then

 

[ViolentPanda]

I shook his hand at an eve of election rally at Pontllanfriath Leisure Centre-it was my first ever chance to vote and I told him I was proud to vote for him. Course I was fucking young, stupid and naive then

The problem with Kinnock is that unlike Blair and Brown, Kinnock "spoke the language", so a lot of people bought his act even after he'd pretty much shown that he didn't give a fuck about socialism, just about power. I don't blame people who voted for him. I blame people who voted more than once for Blair, though.

 

[butchersapron]

The wobblers would do well to have to read of this (and the links therein): David Miliband Is Wrong. The Tories Can’t Win the Next Election

SEB has argued over a prolonged period that the Tory Party is in decline. In 2009 and 2010 articles published here correctly forecastthat the Tories would be unable to gain an overall a majority, even though they had recently been running very strongly in the polls. From the same analysis it is possible to predict that the Tory vote will fall below the 36% secured at the last election and indeed the Tories will have difficulty in gaining substantially over 30% of the vote in 2015. As a result David Miliband is completely wrong, the Tories will be unable to form a majority government.

The analysis of the Tory decline is based on long-established trends. These trends reflect changes in British society and its role in the world. In effect the Tory party expanded beyond its strongholds in the shires - especially in the South and South-East excluding London - as Britain expanded its role in the world. As Britain’s imperial role declined and society altered, so too did the electoral support for the Tories, with some time lag. Tory electoral support is being pushed back to its original heartlands in the south outside of London

 

[treelover]

The rot started with Kinnock purging the party of anyone but the yes-men. Once there was no organised hard left in the party for the rest of the party to blame/steal ideas from/react against it all became about becoming an "acceptable" (i.e. non-socialist) alternative, and given that most of Kinnock and Smith's "up-and-comers" were Atlanticist and pro-neoliberal, it was obvious that the party would move rightward. What wasn't known until Blair's leadership was just how far to the right, and just how savagely Blair's generation would re-write the party rules to disempower the membership.

while I agree with you in general, wasn't Militant really a separate party and really shouldn't have been in the LP, as now Progress is basically a separate entity and should be exposed as such.

 

[ViolentPanda]

while I agree with you in general, wasn't Militant really a separate party and really shouldn't have been in the LP, as now Progress is basically a separate entity and should be exposed as such.

The history of the Labour Party is replete with the presence of "parties within the party"< with caucuses and cliques and fuck knows what else. The "threat" from Militant wasn't the much-touted "entryism with the intent of damaging the party", it was that Militant-within-Labour had a handle on radicalising local politics that could have made Labour per se look bad if it had been allowed to spread further, whereas a Militant outside of Labour wasn't as credible with the more "middle of the road" breed of Labour activist.

Progress is a very different thing, by the way. It isn't based on constituency work or grass roots politics. It's all about an elite of MPs and members of the Establishment and the commentariat attempting to steer national policy for the benefit of their sponsors, not for the ultimate benefit of the electorate. Militant, if nothing else, was democratic.

 

[Rimbaud]

Why is it that the right wing of the Labour Party are so convinced that the bulk of the country is essentially made up of rabid Daily Mail reading Tories against all evidence? Is this largely to do with some internal dynamic of the Westminister bubble which skews their perception of popular opinion, or is there something else at work? Is it because New Labour rely too heavily on reading newspapers to gauge public mood? Or are they just a bunch of Tories, and if so why don't they just join the Tory Party? It seems quite bizarre how stubborn the Labour Party is the belief that it is always too left wing to be elected, despite it losing the last election largely because of supporters defecting to parties which made more social democratic promises - the Lib Dems and the SNP. Also, they must surely be aware that close enough to all the members they lost since Blair have left because of the party's warmongering and copying of Tory policies - and very few if any have left because the party is too left wing.

 

[Rimbaud]

By the way, I've found this thread to be very enlightening, there's a lot of stuff I didn't know. Could anybody recommend me some books (or anything else) to read on Labour's recent history? Specifically, Kinnock purging the party of leftists, the role of Progress in the party, and the ways in which Tony Blair reformed Labour to minimise influence from the grassroots?

 

[nino_savatte]

The most depressing thing about the entire welfare benefits debate is its a debate the tories are winning. Its their new 'law and order'.

Just like immigration the whole debate has become one of anectodes, half truths and downright lies. It's all been exacerbated by the media, the labour party weakly limping behind and parroting the same sort of nonsense.

They're only 'winning' because the supine British media will only carry their message and will present no opposing discourses. Then there are the programmes like Saints and Scroungers with Dominic Littlecock, which presents a distorted picture of benefits claimants. The message there is "some people cheat the system, therefore all benefits claimants are bad".

 

[Delroy Booth]

By the way, I've found this thread to be very enlightening, there's a lot of stuff I didn't know. Could anybody recommend me some books (or anything else) to read on Labour's recent history? Specifically, Kinnock purging the party of leftists, the role of Progress in the party, and the ways in which Tony Blair reformed Labour to minimise influence from the grassroots?

Get Hammer of the Left by John Golding

 

[Grandma Death]

They're only 'winning' because the supine British media will only carry their message and will present no opposing discourses. Then there are the programmes like Saints and Scroungers with Dominic Littlecock, which presents a distorted picture of benefits claimants. The message there is "some people cheat the system, therefore all benefits claimants are bad".

I agree. Problem is for me, its highlighted how gullible some of the electorate are. They are being led by their noses. Its being backed up by anectodes. Its backed up by rhetoric from the main parties. Why the fuck dont some people think for themselves-then the polls wouldn't consistently show broad agreement with the attacks on welfare claimants.

 

[nino_savatte]

I agree. Problem is for me, its highlighted how gullible some of the electorate are. They are being led by their noses. Its being backed up by anectodes. Its backed up by rhetoric from the main parties. Why the fuck dont some people think for themselves-then the polls wouldn't consistently show broad agreement with the attacks on welfare claimants.

I think we need a Chavez style programme of mass education. Some people in this country would happily vote for their own demise if this venal government told them it was good for them.

 

[Idris2002]

More crap about how they need to kill people on benefits.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...t-evil-benefits-scroungers.html#ixzz1iD8Y4j5K

All the buzzwords are there, workshy, sponger etc. Not one word in the article about recession or unemployment. Even the Mail readers notice that!

No, there hasn't been a lamer labour leader than Ed M. But if you thinkhe was bad, wait 'til you see the act that follows him.

 

[Greebo]

I think we need a Chavez style programme of mass education. Some people in this country would happily vote for their own demise if this venal government told them it was good for them.

Those who didn't hear back then, will feel soon.

 

[SikhWarrioR]

No, there hasn't been a lamer labour leader than Ed M. But if you thinkhe was bad, wait 'til you see the act that follows him.

miliband was bad but when you considered that he only followed on from the disasters of kinnock, blair and brown miliband did not have that much work to do to be the worst labour leader