A new beginning for Labour?
Or more of the same?
Ed will certainly have a struggle with certain sections of the press having narrowly won with union support. Can he deal with the flack?
Will he be undermined by dogmatic union leaders in the inevitable upcoming anti cuts campaigns?
Is it feasible that 'Socialism' could cease to be considered a dirty word?
What do you all think?
Last edited by smudge; 26th September 2010 at 08:20 AM. Reason: incorrect worm...!
Difficult to know - the downside of being beholden to the unions is that a retreat to the core supporters is more likely - and that is what did for the conservatives for years.
However, depending on how the cuts work out - there could be a huge swathe of disgruntled people in a few years time.
The new Labour leader seems likely to have the luxury of almost five years to sort out his position and establish himself. It should be an interesting election...
I don't see how he is, or could be, beholden to the Unions. No other Labour leader has been, even in the past when they were getting 90% plus of their funding from Unions rather than the various billionaire friends they have now.Originally Posted by Pebble
A retreat to core voters isn't the issue. At the last election many of Labour's core voters boycotted or switched to Lib Dem/Green/BNP. They need their core "working class" vote back. All this talk about needing the "centre ground" is fairly bollocks; the Libs had the centre ground for 100 years and only got into power occasionally as junior partners.
Perhaps, but the Coalition could collapse much sooner. If it fails soon then half of those Lib Dem votes of earlier this year will be going back to Labour, regardless of policies or personalities.
I hope you're right Bob. I'm enthused by his win, and hoped for the result but didn't expect it.
I can find very little information on what precisely happened, though the following accords with my observations among those I know. Yes they lost some as you say, but they certainly lost a substantial proportion to the conservatives too, those I have met that fit into this category were not core voters.
http://www.labourlist.org/the-magic-...nning-majority
"Where Ed Miliband has a point is that Labour did lose working class voters to the Conservatives. All the voters Labour lost didn’t vote Conservative but a significant portion did. His analysis stops short, however. The real question is why did Labour lose these votes to the Conservatives? If they were ‘real’ or ‘traditional’ Labour then why on earth would they vote Conservative?"
Ed M was the guy who wrote the last manifesto, utterly committed to the neoconservative and neoliberal agenda, unfettered market capitalism, the mantra of growth as the basis for everything, and although these days he eschews the Blair/Brown spin machine, he was every bit a part of it.
When in opposition, the labour social-democrats always come out with "radical" ideas but in practice, they always avoid doing anything that would upset the owners of capital. Having no intention of challenging them for power to carry out major social reform in the interests of working people, they are impotent as reformists and so always become managers of the system, turning their attention on those who would rock the boat.
Harold Wilson brought troops out against the dockers in 1966 and Barbara Castle produced the anti-union In Place of Strife, Callaghan had the anti-union Concordat, and Blair was consistently anti-union, despite all of them claiming to have a "radical" agenda.
It was Ed's dad, Ralph, who explained in some detail back in 1968 why reformist politicians always turn against working people as soon as they discover that to attempt to reform capitalism implies taking on a fight. Ed's just the same.
He's committed to slashing welfare spending and boosting business confidence. Why anyone would have any confidence in him acting in the interests of working people is beyond me, one of those stubborn old Labour myths which resist all the evidence to the contrary.
Even the Economist is bemused by people thinking he is left wing.
So the unions voted for him because the leaders are too stupid to see what is so patently obvious?
I can't speak for Bob Lloyd, of course, and I have no special knowledge here. But one explanation for their action is that EM seemed the best they were likely to get. A hungry dog will eat dirty puddings.
It's all relative. I don't think anyone in the Labour party is particularly 'left wing'. But Ed is probably a smidgen to the Left of Blair! And there are several newspapers that will describe him as a raving Commie if it suits their agenda.
Either way, where Labour positions itself politically is of interest to all of us, supporters, members, those that despise them, alike. Because like it or not, they are going to be the only option we have at the next election.
What interests me is whether the political debate widens enough to give any real option. Any real choice or difference between parties.
Be careful what you wish for - at least all of our three main parties are reasonably sensible. Take a look across the Pond if you want to see a real difference emerging between political parties; under the influence of the Tea Party, the Republicans are being pushed so far into the bonkers fringe that they make UKIP look like Marxists and the BNP rather intelligent.
Well that was fun.
Watched the result come in live. It had everything. Including a scenario that would make a BBC sitcom proud: the battle between two Millibands. Or a fifth of a Centiband if you prefer. Of course if you reject metric entirely, in the old money it would be a poor second to a Foot.
Also wasn't the reality TV show aspect brilliant with contestants being eliminated one by one. I was half expecting Diane Abbott to have to sing for survival against Andy Burnham. Then in the end it came down to everyone's second choice. What an epithet to carry. Ed Milliband: "Everyone's second choice"
There were tears in my eyes as he was warmly congratulated by Neil Kinnock, Margaret Beckett and Harriet Harman. You could just see the metaphorical baton being passed as Ed picked up the mantle of the UK's next former leader of the Labour Party.
Yes this was a proud moment that will be recorded forever in the footnotes of history.
I watched it live on the BBC. Part-way through, the verbally incontinent commentators couldn't help themselves and just had to start rabbiting on, totally drowning out the announcement of the results. I was screaming "JUST SHUT UP, I WANT TO LISTEN TO THIS!!!" at the TV - pointless, but it made me feel a bit better
Very funny, Matt!
Is it me or does Ed look just a little surprised to have won?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks