NationStates Jolt Archive

We in the UK are now all aware that Blair is likely to resign his post as Prime Minister and Labour Party leader before this time next year. However both he, almost all of his potential successors and his party are pretty much despised among the British population, and are lagging behind the Tories in all the polls - despite the fact that they are not all that different to each other in terms of policy.

So what can Labour do to get back on top? I think they are in quite a muddle, since they really only have two choices - either continue in the New "Labour" neoliberal path, and become the heir to the unpopular Blair legacy, or disown Blair and Brown entirely and move back to the centre-left.

So what the hell can Labour do to save their skins and have a cat's chance in hell of performing well in the 2009/10 election?

However both he, almost all of his potential successors and his party are pretty much despised among the British population


Actually, I although this is the popular belief, that isn't completely true.


or disown Blair and Brown entirely and move back to the centre-left.


Why do they have to do both?

I like Gordon, id vote for him

If I were a Brit, I'd support Gordon Brown.


But I'm not.

Probably the same fate as the royals...
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/derek45/funny/ownedbrit.jpg

either continue in the New "Labour" neoliberal path, and become the heir to the unpopular Blair legacy, or disown Blair and Brown entirely and move back to the centre-left.

So what the hell can Labour do to save their skins and have a cat's chance in hell of performing well in the 2009/10 election?

New Labour are hardly neo liberal. Especially Brown.

My advice to them is to stick with the popularist pragmatic approach and attack people who copy them.

We in the UK are now all aware that Blair is likely to resign his post as Prime Minister and Labour Party leader before this time next year. However both he, almost all of his potential successors and his party are pretty much despised among the British population, and are lagging behind the Tories in all the polls - despite the fact that they are not all that different to each other in terms of policy.

So what can Labour do to get back on top? I think they are in quite a muddle, since they really only have two choices - either continue in the New "Labour" neoliberal path, and become the heir to the unpopular Blair legacy, or disown Blair and Brown entirely and move back to the centre-left.

So what the hell can Labour do to save their skins and have a cat's chance in hell of performing well in the 2009/10 election?

Try to place some distance between them and the US government but I don't think anything can save them now. It seems to be the cycle of British politics, a fresh strong new government comes in and over time it becomes more and more mired in scandal before eventually being voted out by an electorate who think the other party is fresh and strong with good ideas.

Gordon Brown is going to be this decades John Major.

If my allegiances are not already known, I should state I'm a young conservative, and a thoroughly right wing one at that.

Personally, I fail to see how Labour can, or, indeed, should, retain power in 2009/2010. Even if Blair has arrived at a private compromise with Brown, whereby Milliband and Reid don't oppose in a leadership contest, subsequent to his departure, it will mean nothing. The Blairite faction will not accept Brown under any circumstances, thus the next leader will be bereft of the opposing faction. Indeed, the very issue of, if Brown loses, how the victor deals with him, is problematic. Can he be omitted from cabinet? Not in the slightest.

What are the chances that whoever takes over from Blair makes his first act as PM an announcement of a full pullout of Iraq?

Iraq war aside, I actually fairly like Tony. Brown strikes me as a scheming backstabber. That said, I always vote Lib Dem, and expect Labour to fall to the Tories (which makes me sad) at the next election, despite David Cameron's lack of direction.

What are the chances that whoever takes over from Blair makes his first act as PM an announcement of a full pullout of Iraq?

0. Too much credibility rides on them sticking it out, all the major contenders for the leadership voted for the war in parliament and they know the tories would bitchslap them with that knowledge if they performed an imediate 180.

0. Too much credibility rides on them sticking it out, all the major contenders for the leadership voted for the war in parliament and they know the tories would bitchslap them with that knowledge if they performed an imediate 180.

But didn't the Tories all support the war as well? Isn't that part of the reason they couldn't really capitalize on the last election?

But didn't the Tories all support the war as well? Isn't that part of the reason they couldn't really capitalize on the last election?

Doesn't matter, they would do damage by accusing the new leader of not having the courage of his convictions and being weak, not of supporting the war initailly.

Iraq war aside, I actually fairly like Tony. Brown strikes me as a scheming backstabber. That said, I always vote Lib Dem, and expect Labour to fall to the Tories (which makes me sad) at the next election, despite David Cameron's lack of direction.

Damn. You mean, essentially, that Mr.Blair has subsidised Scottish welfare, as opposed to that nasty 'ickle Mr.Cameron who might make you self-reliant?

Damn. You mean, essentially, that Mr.Blair has subsidised Scottish welfare, as opposed to that nasty 'ickle Mr.Cameron who might make you self-reliant?

To be fair, the whole point of welfare is that the load is spread across the country allowing more affluent areas to support poorer areas.

We in the UK are now all aware that Blair is likely to resign his post as Prime Minister and Labour Party leader before this time next year. However both he, almost all of his potential successors and his party are pretty much despised among the British population, and are lagging behind the Tories in all the polls - despite the fact that they are not all that different to each other in terms of policy.
Correct!

Cameron is more charismatic, is younger, and more in touch with the actual voting population that Blair.

Blair is also (correctly) seen as Bush's lapdog and the British people generally have no great love for the US population or indeed the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
So what can Labour do to get back on top?
Dissolve and come back 20 years later under a new name?
either continue in the New "Labour" neoliberal path
New Labour is about as neoliberal as the Republican Party, I think you'll find.
and become the heir to the unpopular Blair legacy, or disown Blair and Brown entirely and move back to the centre-left.
Reed etc. aren't going to be able to get Labour back to the left wing, it'll be Brown up next, and after he gets into power, he'll go a bit Cheka and remove anyone he doesn't like from the party.
So what the hell can Labour do to save their skins and have a cat's chance in hell of performing well in the 2009/10 election?
They can't do a bloody thing. The conservatives are going to win, but with big advances in Lib Dem and probably also extremist party votes.

They can't do a bloody thing. The conservatives are going to win, but with big advances in Lib Dem and probably also extremist party votes.

I would love to see a BNP presence in the next parliament. It might wake the apathetic majority to the danger of staying home on election day.

I would like to see Dr. John Reid replace Blair as he puts the rights of the people of Britain first, ever that or I'd like to see Cameron in number 10. I don't want to see Gordon Brown in charge because he will increase income taxes.

I would love to see a BNP presence in the next parliament. It might wake the apathetic majority to the danger of staying home on election day.
I'd rather not have the BNP with any kind of power, I'd prefer to see a Lib Dem government (maybe Ming will die of old age and let Simon get into power?) in charge instead.

I'd rather not have the BNP with any kind of power, I'd prefer to see a Lib Dem government (maybe Ming will die of old age and let Simon get into power?) in charge instead.

It would be funny to see the lib dems in power, they wouldn't have a clue what to do with themselves if they actually won. They'd spend the first year wandering around saying 'so this is what the inside of a ministry looks like' to each other.

I do honestly think that a shock like a BNP MP would be a good thing to galvanise the British public, it's not as if they'd be able to achieve anything.

It would be funny to see the lib dems in power, they wouldn't have a clue what to do with themselves if they actually won. They'd spend the first year wandering around saying 'so this is what the inside of a ministry looks like' to each other.

I do honestly think that a shock like a BNP MP would be a good thing to galvanise the British public, it's not as if they'd be able to achieve anything.
They run my town fairly well...

And as I said, the more power the BNP have, the worse.

Just remember - in the 1920's, most Germans were taking the piss out of the Nazis, 10 years later they were under their control.

Never, ever underestimate what an extremist party can do as soon as it gets any measure of influence and power.

They run my town fairly well...

And as I said, the more power the BNP have, the worse.

Just remember - in the 1920's, most Germans were taking the piss out of the Nazis, 10 years later they were under their control.

Never, ever underestimate what an extremist party can do as soon as it gets any measure of influence and power.

I've said this before in another thread, I wouldn't mind so much if the BNP gained a government, they would only last for 5 years and while they would do damage in that time none of it would be irreversible. I think the benefits of politically aware population it would generate would be worth 5 bad years.

I've said this before in another thread, I wouldn't mind so much if the BNP gained a government, they would only last for 5 years and while they would do damage in that time none of it would be irreversible. I think the benefits of politically aware population it would generate would be worth 5 bad years.
Take five random years of Thatcher.

Irreversible damage will have been caused by them.

Make this so very much worse in scale and think about it.

Take five random years of Thatcher.

Irreversible damage will have been caused by them.

Make this so very much worse in scale and think about it.

What irreversible damage? We live in one of the most economically stable and prosperous nations in the world. I may not like Thatcher but I don't think she damaged the country.

I, a dedicated marxist, decided to know my enemy and had a look at the BNP manefesto.

I say if they ever got into power i'd have to take up arms against them.

What irreversible damage? We live in one of the most economically stable and prosperous nations in the world. I may not like Thatcher but I don't think she damaged the country.
Coal miners being out of power, buggered up relations to the EU, ruined the Census with Poll Tax, screwed up the education of a whole generation, made the wealthy very wealthy at the expense of the poor, need I go on?

I, a dedicated marxist, decided to know my enemy and had a look at the BNP manefesto.

I say if they ever got into power i'd have to take up arms against them.
Damn right, use those standard-issue rifles we'll all mandatoraly own for some good reasons!

I've said this before in another thread, I wouldn't mind so much if the BNP gained a government, they would only last for 5 years and while they would do damage in that time none of it would be irreversible. I think the benefits of politically aware population it would generate would be worth 5 bad years.

That has to be one of the most stupid things I've read on here for a long, long time. look at what hitler did between 1933-1937 (the time scale your talking about) with a relitivly small majority in parliment. reamber he was voted in. The BNP would use that time to distroy British democrac and establish a facist dictatorship, they'd be massive outcry but if enough people have voted for them to get in and so many of our people are politically unaware then there wouldn't be too much resistance. besides Facists are often very effective at law and order, and the BNp are a very militaristic party...

Coal miners being out of power, buggered up relations to the EU, ruined the Census with Poll Tax, screwed up the education of a whole generation, made the wealthy very wealthy at the expense of the poor, need I go on?

The unions push too far under wilson and maggie dinged them, they almost crippled the country before she reigned them in. If they hadn't been so overly militant then the political will to curtail their powers so severly wouldn't have been there so they were their own worst enemy.

Relation with the EU? She got us the fairest deal we'd ever had to that point. Our initial membership was so slanted in favour of europe it was a joke, de Gaulles veot in 1963 meant we had to accept these bad terms in order to gain membership at all. THe EUs problem with maggie was that she realised the EU needed us more than we needed to be a member a fought for a better deal for the UK.

There has been a census since maggie and the poll tax so i'm fairly sure that isn't irreversible.

The change over to a comprehensive schooling system has damaged the eduaction of our nation and that was a labour iniative.

Every government the UK has had has made the wealth rich at the expense of the poor, it's what governments do. At least the tories under thatcher were honest about it.

That has to be one of the most stupid things I've read on here for a long, long time. look at what hitler did between 1933-1937 (the time scale your talking about) with a relitivly small majority in parliment. reamber he was voted in. The BNP would use that time to distroy British democrac and establish a facist dictatorship, they'd be massive outcry but if enough people have voted for them to get in and so many of our people are politically unaware then there wouldn't be too much resistance. besides Facists are often very effective at law and order, and the BNp are a very militaristic party...

You are aware of the controls set in place within the UK governmental system to prevent a dictatorship from being established?

A small majority in parliament would not be enough to even come close to getting around these.

You are aware of the controls set in place within the UK governmental system to prevent a dictatorship from being established?

A small majority in parliament would not be enough to even come close to getting around these.
OTOH if they're in control, then the regulations go right out of the window.

OTOH if they're in control, then the regulations go right out of the window.

You think? How would anything get done by the government then?

I think the UK Labour party should change its name, because they're not a Labour party anymore. They abandoned any connection they had with labour when "New Labour" came around.

You think? How would anything get done by the government then?
By direct command of Griffin and co.

By direct command of Griffin and co.

Directly commanding who? Do you understand the legislative process in the UK?

I wouldnt trust Blair to post a letter, but I do believe he always means well. Unfortunately, he's gone all Maggie/FU over time. His Logic? Tories are bad, labour is better - Blair make labour electable - Blair good - Blair reelected twice - Blair perfect uber god - no need to listen to anyone else. Somewhere along the lines he decided american politics and their sham of a democracy was also good, but I missed why.
Anyway, after Blair, I reckon Gordy would be good, as he's tight, and seems to run an OK economy. Except the lefties that have been muzzled for 12 years or so will be let slip, policies will go shit, the economy will nosedive as per labour tradition, and the Tories will get in on the rebound - kinda similar to 1997 anyone?
Roll on a hung parliament, make em discuss what's best for the country and reach a compromise. Maybe get Calais back too, it's historically British anyway.
Penguin. Washed up old Scots with hard to spell names ftw.;)

I wouldnt trust Blair to post a letter, but I do believe he always means well. Unfortunately, he's gone all Maggie/FU over time. His Logic? Tories are bad, labour is better - Blair make labour electable - Blair good - Blair reelected twice - Blair perfect uber god - no need to listen to anyone else. Somewhere along the lines he decided american politics and their sham of a democracy was also good, but I missed why.
Anyway, after Blair, I reckon Gordy would be good, as he's tight, and seems to run an OK economy. Except the lefties that have been muzzled for 12 years or so will be let slip, policies will go shit, the economy will nosedive as per labour tradition, and the Tories will get in on the rebound - kinda similar to 1997 anyone?
Roll on a hung parliament, make em discuss what's best for the country and reach a compromise. Maybe get Calais back too, it's historically British anyway.
Penguin. Washed up old Scots with hard to spell names ftw.;)

Ummm, John Smith made Labour electable, Tony was just lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time.

Ummm, John Smith made Labour electable, Tony was just lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time.

Fair enough. JS had a l;ot to do with it, dropping the union block vote, that was about as Democratic and for the people as Stalin. I still think JS could only have got in via "arg, Thatchers leftovers are pointless", whereas Blair is someone you can actually vote FOR. But I think irrespective of JS/Blair or reforms, Sooty could have got elected in 1997, the people were so fed up.

Hung parliament, Gordy stay as chancellor, Major joint, running thigs between them, as they are sensible and clever men. Then make Boris Johnson titular PM with no actual power, cos he's fun and cool and accidentally speaks a lot of sense on the sly. Maybe get Paddy Ashdowne back as arbiter. And a role for Prof Winston.

You are aware of the controls set in place within the UK governmental system to prevent a dictatorship from being established?

A small majority in parliament would not be enough to even come close to getting around these.

You are joking, aren't you?

Seriously, tell me you are.

There is nothing that a Government with a majority in Parliament can't do; Secondary Legislation, Royal Prerogative and the Parliament Act mean that we live in an elected dictatorship, and always have done. When was the last time Old Tony asked your opinion on anything he did?

The only thing that could stop their actions are the monarch refusing to sign legislation into law; no monarch has done this in 300 years though, so it's impossible to imagine what would happen if one actually did. And, seeing as this can only block Primary Legislation, it's not exactly a foolproof defence either.

What are the chances that whoever takes over from Blair makes his first act as PM an announcement of a full pullout of Iraq?

If it's Brown, then none; he was part of the Government who went to war in the first place. If, by some amazing set of circumstances, one of the ultra left candidates who are saying they will stand actually one, then they might withdraw.

Dontcha just love British Democracy? Yay for new Executives without elections!

Directly commanding who? Do you understand the legislative process in the UK?
Yes, and that's why I'm really not in the mood for a BNP government.

They have a majority and *WHAM* everything gets passed pretty damn quickly.

The House of Lords can delay the whole thing, but really they don't have too much power.

The only thing that could really stop them would be the Queen dissolving parliament, and that would cause an enormous backlash, the Republicans would strengthen their resolve, due to seeing the Queen doing something that, in their own minds is "undemocratic", and there might well be a revolution.

Not good at all.

If it's Brown, then none; he was part of the Government who went to war in the first place. If, by some amazing set of circumstances, one of the ultra left candidates who are saying they will stand actually one, then they might withdraw.

Dontcha just love British Democracy? Yay for new Executives without elections!
Indeed.

"This guy's now the PM"
"We didn't vote for that..."
"We don't care, it's we in the HoC that actually make the decisions"
"Eugh... hurrah for more Labour conservatism..."

You are aware of the controls set in place within the UK governmental system to prevent a dictatorship from being established?

A small majority in parliament would not be enough to even come close to getting around these.

I'm also aware that a goverment with even a small majority could overurle them within a year or so, they'rd probably be public outcry but if enougb people voted for them to give them a majority then they'd probably be okay.

All our 'controls' could be overridden within a year, maybe two at best. Seeing as they have 5 years to work in they could take down our legsive system, and rebuild it in that time.

To be fair, the whole point of welfare is that the load is spread across the country allowing more affluent areas to support poorer areas.

But upon a national level? Why should English conservative voters subsidise a country which unilaterally refuses to vote conservative, and without which Labour would be disempowered to agreat extent?

You are aware of the controls set in place within the UK governmental system to prevent a dictatorship from being established?

A small majority in parliament would not be enough to even come close to getting around these.
How hard was it for Hitler to get the Enabling Act passed?

And that was under Proportional Representation, in a time when it was harder to get stuff passed.