+- The UK Babe Channels Forum (https://www.babeshows.co.uk)
+-- Forum: General (/forumdisplay.php?fid=19)
+--- Forum: All Other Subjects (/forumdisplay.php?fid=114)
+---- Forum: News Zone (/forumdisplay.php?fid=111)
+---- Thread: Labour Leadership Contest (/showthread.php?tid=65568)
RE: Labour Leadership Contest - mickster - 16-07-2016 20:24
You are spot on Mr Shandy Hand !
To win power you have to appeal to the floating voters (ie . the ones who vote Tory when Labour lurches to the far left.) Whoever takes the middle ground usually win elections .
Corbyn is far left of centre and therefore has no chance of ever winning .
It took Kinnock & Co FOUR election defeats (79,83,87,92.) before Labour were electable .
They finally won by landslide in 97 with 2 major (no pun intended) factors .A broad appeal and the public absolutely sick of Tory "snouts in the trough" scandal after scandal .
Any Labour person who doubts Kinnock's words better count the years it took to get rid of the unelectable ideologists and rent a mob bully boys .
RE: Labour Leadership Contest - Doddle - 16-07-2016 21:38
(16-07-2016 15:13 )mickster Wrote: The only way Labour will be electable is to ditch Corbyn .Hilary Benn would spend every waking moment with people telling him he was a disgrace to his dad.
Time Hilary Benn grew a pair and threw his hat in to the contest .
Afterall ,he's the one who kickstarted the revolt .
The best candidate Labour currently have that would be fit to be PM. imo .
Neil Kinnock wouldn't recognise the truth if it pulled the rest of his hair out. Blair won the 97 Election because New Labour just offered a shinier more competent version of Thatcherism, and this had its natural zenith with the 2003 Iraq War.
The mutineers who pretend that a return to New Labour would get them back into power seem to forget that if they abandon their principles to do so (again!), then they won't be able to do any bloody good when they get there!
RE: Labour Leadership Contest - ShandyHand - 16-07-2016 21:44
^ Principles don't have to be abandoned. You just start out with more subtlety shaded real world ones.
RE: Labour Leadership Contest - Doddle - 16-07-2016 21:59
Harold Wilson had more principles than Tony Blair. AND he won more General Elections than Tony Blair, too. So, think on
RE: Labour Leadership Contest - mickster - 16-07-2016 22:14
@Doddle .
1.Hilary Benn is NOT a TOTAL clone of his father .
2. John Smith was the architect of New Labour ,before his sad untimely death .
3.Blair actually WON 3 elections .
4.Wilson WON 4 elections and he too came from Labours right / moderate section .
Name one Left Wing PM.???
To quote Billy Brag "sweet moderation ,heart of this nation".
RE: Labour Leadership Contest - M-L-L - 16-07-2016 22:15
(16-07-2016 21:59 )Doddle Wrote: Harold Wilson had more principles than Tony Blair. AND he won more General Elections than Tony Blair, too. So, think on
^ On things like keeping UK out of Vietnam I'd say you are correct.
And I'd say he had a bit more of an egalitarian streak than Blair : he set up the Open University after all.
But on other issues he was distrusted by both right and left factions in his party and like Blair, was initially seen as fresh by the public, but once in office became tarnished and eventually to be seen as shifty, opportunist and unprincipled, just interested in staying in power? (A not unique problem to him but to many politicians of any party, it has to be said; governing always requires unpopular compromises) . He arguably lost the 1970 election partly through "bottling" over Trade Union reform, which arguably did much more damage to Labour long-term and allowed the Tories to drive through much more anti-Trade Union policies when they came back into power in 1979 ?
There wasn't a huge enthusiasm for him in the elections of 1974, the public was pretty weary of both Conservative and Labour policy failure and the general mess the country seemed to be in ?
RE: Labour Leadership Contest - HannahsPet - 16-07-2016 22:25
(16-07-2016 21:59 )Doddle Wrote: Harold Wilson had more principles than Tony Blair. AND he won more General Elections than Tony Blair, too. So, think on
it was also a different time things have changed a lot between the 60's and the 90's for one there was millions unemployed and the destruction of manufacturing in the UK although could be claimed that Blair coming in 97 the economy had already started to improve under Kenneth Clarke and Gordon Brown got the credit because of firm foundations
also think that scottish labour had a lot to do with the sucess of labour in the 90's and wiped out now and i dont see them getting any better soon
RE: Labour Leadership Contest - M-L-L - 16-07-2016 22:36
^ Perhaps also though there was a bit more in common between MPs and the people they are supposed to represent in those days also though. The political class these days really is a class apart in a Westminster bubble in a lot of people's eyes, in thrall to big business donors funding their campaigns (and funding both sides as it seems to suit them so that both sides end up with the more or less the same policies too scared to bite the hand that feeds too much) and not really giving any hope to voters who are not getting any benefit from the process, nor any reason to vote for them - that's why all the protest votes are going to more populist and "fringe" parties.
RE: Labour Leadership Contest - Censorship :-( - 17-07-2016 01:37
^ Not to mention the power of the media, and the 24 hour 'news' cycle, the making of policy 'on the hoof' at the behest of media 'outrage', twitter (et al) campaigns...
RE: Labour Leadership Contest - mickster - 17-07-2016 02:31
I've yet to see a Left Wing Labour Leader win a General Election and don't see it changing anytime soon .
Only Labour can defeat the Tories and only when led by a moderate .
History proves this .
All the "protest" parties are pissing in the wind .
And don't get me started on the treacherous Liberals who paid for their treachery last time .
It's them and SNP who are keeping UK Tory .