Topics about the Labour Party
:sunglasses: 56 % ❤ 1.2 % :thumbsup: 11.1 % 😯 2.4 % :grinning: 20.6 % 🧥 0.4 % 🙏 1.2 % 😟 2.8 % :cry: 3.6 % :shit: 0.8 %
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
 
By youngian
Membership Days Posts
#310115
Dacre Bleugh wrote:
mattomac wrote: It is reminding me a lot of the American elections.
Me too. I'm wondering if the same "Tea Party effect" might happen here. i.e. After the initial buzz and momentum, "average" voters started to see sections of the GOP as the nutters they are, which turned people off by association. Plus, in 2008 the whole vibe of Obama's "hope" campaign shone through against McCain & Palin's negative campaigning.

Think Labour could really rinse the GB Olympics nostalgia for all its "one nation" worth (in a non-Riefenstahl sense of course). It could be used to demonstrate "multiculturalism" in a patriotic, yet positive light. Yet simultaneously, it sidelines and marginalises the likes of UKIP and Tories such as Aidan "leftie multicultural crap" Burley. It would be beneficial to tie a campaign to one of the few events between 2010-15 which can (or will) be associated with a "feel-good" factor.
And another comparison worth making is the Iraq War as Labour's EU. Members still hold Blair in the same kind of contempt as old Tories hold Heath over Europe. Passions ran so high hundreds of thousands took to the street and Blair was attacked from all sides. He was still re-elected despite this issue and the high opinion polls saying they wanted Britain out of Iraq.

UKIP would be lucky to get more than a few dozen dotty Daily Express readers in Hyde Park on a rally on the EU referendum. But my point being that Miliband is right to hold his nerve over anti-EU and immigration hysteria.

Cameron would have more chance of being elected if he held his nerve but will lose because he looks like he hasn't got a grip over a rabble of a party (like Romney and McCain) not over any particular postion over the EU or immigration.
By Dacre Bleugh
Membership Days Membership Days
#310144
youngian wrote: And another comparison worth making is the Iraq War as Labour's EU. Members still hold Blair in the same kind of contempt as old Tories hold Heath over Europe. Passions ran so high hundreds of thousands took to the street and Blair was attacked from all sides. He was still re-elected despite this issue and the high opinion polls saying they wanted Britain out of Iraq.
Aye, I was one of those disgusted with Blair. And Iraq could still prove to be a problem for Labour. It happened in Bradford West with Respect, so it's always possible another front could open up. If UKIP go on the aggressive toward "effniks" or Muslims, and Labour's response is muted, it could open another door for Respect or an independent.
 
By youngian
Membership Days Posts
#310663
Littlejohn's brain wrote:Labour voters are becoming more hard line over welfare

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013 ... solidarity" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
This will be other people's welfare that is undeserving presumably? You never meet anyone forced onto benefits complaining that their life is just too comfortable.
 
By The Weeping Angel
Membership Days Posts
#310665
This will be other people's welfare that is undeserving presumably? You never meet anyone forced onto benefits complaining that their life is just too comfortable.

My thoughts exactly. But that fact that Labour voters are thinking this is cause for concern
By sporran
Membership Days Posts
#310697
Dacre Bleugh wrote:
new puritan wrote:
Dacre Bleugh wrote: I'm not that concerned about it, to be honest. It isn't that surprising that UKIP are racking up second places in northern by-elections - the Tories are busily retoxifying themselves (and it wasn't as if they were popular here to begin with), and what's more they're taking the Lib Dems with them. I mean I'd obviously prefer to see the Greens or another left party competing with Labour rather than UKIP, but I'm not convinced it's really that big a deal.
That's just the problem. I think they have - in the form of UKIP. Plus, UKIP seem much more adept at attracting working-class support without the Thatcherite baggage - despite having Thatcherism-on-acid economic policies;
http://www.academia.edu/245067/Strategi ... _Elections" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Think there's a worry with younger males too - be they apolitical, apathetic, small c conservatives or EDL knuckle-dragger types. They didn't experience Thatcherism first hand and consequential economic decline in some areas. Thus, they're more prone to hold greater resentment towards Blair and Brown for cultural reasons (read: "immigrants are making this town shit"), rather than consider material and social deprivation resulting from economic policy and cuts. It's like how the debate has been framed in Boston - i.e. "immigrants putting a strain on services" rather than considering these services may actually be underfunded in the first place.

Realistically, UKIP are probably not going to pick up many - if any - seats in 2015. At worst, they may end up as part of a Tory/UKIP coalition, which would be pretty scary!

I do think Labour need to up their game regarding framing debates about Europe and immigration rather than shadow the right. Hollande tried this and it only boosted Le-Pen. e.g. focus on introducing legislation regarding exploitative "foreign" agencies rather than foreign workers themselves. Actually call out the gutter press for their scaremongering - being seen standing up to the "establishment" media will surely win a few hearts and minds. It may seem paradoxical, but attacking the populist media could in itself be quite a populist move.

If Ed really wants to show a vision for "one nation", a good place to start would be going in studs-first on those who are dividing it.
You've nailed it there. I'm dismayed every time I hear another Labour MP talking tough on immigration - not just morally, but I just can't see it working as a strategy. The Tories and UKIP have already embedded the idea in the public's mind that Labour presided over an "open door immigration policy", and any attempt to "out UKIP UKIP" as it were, just opens the door for opponents and the public to laugh and ask how anyone can take them seriously.

Attacking exploitative employers and cuts to services wil surely be a better tactic than Mail-style rhetoric, or meaningless fluff about "doing more on immigration" etc. There's nothing for Labour to win in a competition over who can be toughest on immigration.
 
By Malcolm Armsteen
Membership Days Membership Days Posts
#310704
That's why we should be pushing a living wage as the minimum wage. It would also highlight the extent to which low-pay employers are financially supported by the general taxpayer, the reason we got rid of Speenhamland in the 19th century - the difference being that Speenhamland was paid from parish taxes, and taxpayers could see their money going to subsidise starvation wages. And they objected.
 
By The Weeping Angel
Membership Days Posts
#310711
I agree with you Sporran that talking tough on immigration won't work, although Labour have made noises on dealing with exploitative employers
Last edited by The Weeping Angel on Tue May 14, 2013 6:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 736
US election 2020

The "Trump Train". https://www.bbc.co.u[…]

Boris Johnson

As anticipated. https://twitter.com/Brexit/status[…]

Richard Littlejohn

Even Trump can think up amusing nicknames. They&[…]

Poppy Day bingo

Joe's Tweets appear to be a heady cocktail of Di[…]