Why didn't you just admit to being wrong?
Labour leadership
- Thread starter oryx
- Start date
Why didn't you just admit to being wrong?
Maurice Picarda
Actually, might as well flounce.
You must be new here. Unlikely as that is.
Disturbing indeed. Clearly the Labour Party need to work on their message if people think they're still pro-union/welfare
Maurice Picarda
Actually, might as well flounce.
Brainaddict
slight system overdrive
Well, perhaps discussed above (I haven't read the thread), but Labour seem to have set up a leadership election system that can be rigged by online campaigns. Seems loads of people are signing up as supporter members (£3) to vote for Jeremy. Meanwhile there are rumours that Tories are encouraging each other to sign up and vote Jeremy cos they know it would tear the Labour Party apart. Were the party really thick enough to set up a one person one vote system where you could get a vote online for £3? Or am I missing something?
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Policy Exchange doesn't conduct research as we know it: they throw shit together and claim it's been researched by their 'scholars'.
I seriously doubt the validity of their poll.
Yep
You mean I'm not wrong? Surprise!
Are you one of them?
free spirit
more tea vicar?
I've been trying to sus that out as well.
Might be worth £3 to find out, being as I already get bombarded with labour supporters emails anyway for some reason.
It would need too many people: won't happen. He'd withdraw if it was a Tory plan.
Favelado
J'adore South Shore
There's no point Kendall winning the next election if you're on the left. It's more or less the same as The Tories winning if she's going to demonise benefits claimants, cut spending on services and suck up to business.
You forget that a leader to the left of Blair would have won in 1997, as the public were utterly sick and tired of 18 years of Tory rule. Moving that far to the right was unecessary and paranoid and has ultimately started to destroy Labour. Once they abandoned the last vestiges of their principles, they couldn't go back to them without hysterical press screaming and accusations of Marxism.
Blair gave Labour short-term government in exchange for long-term decline. They don't mean anything anymore and they never will again. They have maneouvered themselves into a corner. UKIP have taken many of their core voters in England, the SNP has wiped them out in Scotland. A socially democratic Labour Party could have kept them and won the last election if Blairism's subservience to Thatcherism hadn't given us the poisonous political narrative that has dominated Westminster and the media for 20 years.
Puddy_Tat
naturally fluffy
which some of the labour leadership hopefuls seem to be continuing
is anyone seriously going to vote labour for a line of "ok, we're shit, all the lies the tories and the press have been spreading about us which we didn't have the balls to call bullshit on, was true all along. we're shit. i mean we were. the tories are right and we're going to be just like them from now on"
Of course. All those leaders to the left of Blair that have won in the last 40 years.
In seriousness, you might be right, but they would not have won like he did. I think you know that.
Interesting that you think that the longest rule Labour have had for what I think is ever you call 'short term government'.
You're utterly delusional.
What, the one where I point out you're wrong.
Tell me, how many leaders to the left of Blair have won a GE in 40 years?
And how is the longest unbroken period of Labour power 'short term'?
free spirit
more tea vicar?
So AC14, assuming the tories manage to fuck the economy up again with their austerity policies, your recommendation is that going into the next election with another leader who's also signed up to austerity is the best strategy for winning it?
That worked really well last time.
That worked really well last time.
I guess that's a no.
What, Ed - who was backed by the unions. I agree. Stupid move. We all knew it as well. He wasn't backed by the party but was backed by a few bureaucrats - and you lot loved it. Now you pretend you criticised him.
I obviously don't mean 'you' - but I do mean the left.
free spirit
more tea vicar?
Ed who ran an election campaign based on them continuing tory austerity policies after the election, just not quite as much as the tories.
How the fuck anyone can come to the conclusion that they lost due to being too left wing is beyond me - you lost the whole of scotland to a party standing on an explicitly anti-austerity ticket ffs.
Because he was the left candidate. Who was clueless. And you're wrong, as he pointed out over and over again.
tim
EXPLODED TIM! (Help me!!!)
free spirit
more tea vicar?
wrong about what?
he was clueless I'd agree, but he and his campaign weren't even slightly left wing, their entire economic policy was basically do what the tory's are panning to do, just not quite as much.
So apart from the annoying apostrophe, how do you suggest Labour might have won given the choice in the last election? I suggest David. You suggest, errrr... losing with Ed.
If we had won every seat in Scotland, we'd have lost. That's how anti-austerity hit us.
comrade spurski
Well-Known Member
Blair won elections and there were cuts to services, a wage freeze, bankers were bailed out, taxes for the rich were cut, hospitals shut, fire stations closed down, pensions attacked and wars started.
My pension is predicted to be worth £2800 per yr after paying in since 1994. My wages were still shit as a council worker, I faced job insecurity every year and those on benefits were treated in a disgraceful manner. I am now expected to work until I am 65 or 67 before i can get my pension...all from a Blair labour government.
They told that there was not enough money for my generous pension or better wages yet they threw money at wars and bank bailouts...seriously. .. what's the difference between that and what the tories do?
There is no such thing as a kind cut...they all damage us and Labour seriously damaged us
You suggest things were better under labour but for a huge amount of people that was not true...imo they won 3 elections cos the tories were so hated and were in a fucking mess. The tories won less votes in the last 2 elections than they did in the 1992 election which suggests labour has lost the last 2 elections cos labour voters have given up on them.
The few good things they did were drowned by the shit they threw around as they continued from where the tories ended
My pension is predicted to be worth £2800 per yr after paying in since 1994. My wages were still shit as a council worker, I faced job insecurity every year and those on benefits were treated in a disgraceful manner. I am now expected to work until I am 65 or 67 before i can get my pension...all from a Blair labour government.
They told that there was not enough money for my generous pension or better wages yet they threw money at wars and bank bailouts...seriously. .. what's the difference between that and what the tories do?
There is no such thing as a kind cut...they all damage us and Labour seriously damaged us
You suggest things were better under labour but for a huge amount of people that was not true...imo they won 3 elections cos the tories were so hated and were in a fucking mess. The tories won less votes in the last 2 elections than they did in the 1992 election which suggests labour has lost the last 2 elections cos labour voters have given up on them.
The few good things they did were drowned by the shit they threw around as they continued from where the tories ended
Similar threads
