If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Yes funny that the recessions just also happened to affect us more severely and for longer than almost all other countries and the fact that there were global recessions between 1945-1979 yet we managed to maintain a virtually constant increase in growth only slowing down during recessions and the unemployment was consistently low as a % of the population during these years too - despite their recessions. Also that the UK went from having the lowest unemployment of the major industrial nations to having the largest during the Thatcher years.
Do you think that they would be electable then?
Bear in mind that 18 years in the wilderness because of the left-wing stance Labour had...
If Labour's economic record was so good during those post-war consensus years, then why was there a devaluation and an IMF bailout?
Of course New Labour's economic record is good, but they inherited a good economic position. Blair and co. have simply maintained that.
So it's just a matter of geography, if the ECHR sat in the UK would you have a problem, or is it just because they sit in Brussels?
The Law Lords and ECHR both form part of British Justice system, yet neither (it could be argued) are representative of all the geographical area covered. My Newcastle reference was more about the lack of comminality bwteen the north-east and London and was a reference to the fact that where you sit isn't important. The judgement however are
Labour had always been electable in the past. Their previous term in office ended up in tears but I return to left wing principles does not mean a return to those times. People and ideas change: even 'Red' Ken Livingstone is a much more tamed leftie than he was 20 years ago. Speaking of which, I suspect if he were to be the next Labour candidate to PM he would pull a lot of votes. Although in the eyes of some he will always be marxist/leninist/whatever.
But there is no reason to think that a team made of long-serving backbenchers fronted by respected people like Robin Cook would be unpopular with the public. Today's left-wing backbenchers are not the 'loony left' they could have been in previous Labour governments. They speak what seems to be the voice of the majority in many issues: against further privatisation of public services and ties with private companies, against the Star Wars programme and close co-operation with the warmongering Bush administration, in favour of more investment in schools, hospitals and public transport, against Section 28 and fox hunting... hell, many of them are even against joining the euro.
They certainly seem to have more in common with the public that Tony Blair's deluded cabinet.
Maybe because the pound was overvalued? It was devalued when we came off the gold standard from about $4 to $2. Devaluations are normal and at least it was part of a planned government policy unlike the cock up that was Black Wednesday which had much more of a damaging effect on Conservative economic competence than the 60s devaluation did on Labour.
I did. It's a good comparison, in both cases the pound was overvalued and so it was devalued. However, in the 60s devaluation it was part of government policy and was not an example of economic incompetence because the government was carrying out its stated policy. However, on Black Wednesday the pound was devalued because of pressure from the money markets - the desperate government tried everything - unnecessary interest rate hikes, spending billions of pounds of reserves, dozens of statements from the Prime Minister and Chancellor that we wouldn't leave the ERM only for the government to be forced into a U-turn on the central plank of their economic policy. Not only is that day an example of economic incompetence but when you consider that the whole episode was caused by the same government entering the ERM at what most commentators agreed was a too high rate against the Deutschmark then it was a mess entirely of its own making.
But didn't the cabinet have much in common (apparently) with the public before being voted into office? What is to say that, when faced with having to make real decisions and policies, they won't lose that grasp.
Idealism is great, being able to speak your mind is great, sadly we don't afford our politcians that luxury when in Govt.
Personally I believe that a move towards the left would be a bad move for Labour and would ensure their return to the opposition benches.
Recent history has shown that extremism (from either main party) loses them votes...
The most radical policy I could imagine a left wing Labour party coming with would be the re-nationalisation of the railways. Can you see many people protesting against that?
I think they would continue the current economic policy as well. It's as good as it has been, and to be honest Gordon is one not scared of putting taxes up anyway. Not much change there.
And look how much abuse Gordon has got, and is getting, for that.
Seriously, I would prefer a slightly left Labour Party in power, I just don't think that such a party is electable at the moment in the UK.
Is Prescott 'New Labour'? I doubt it.
A number of them have MI5 files as well don't they?
But most of their 'Old Labourness' died as they sat in office and starting seeing things from a different angle. :rolleyes:
Certainly the membership of the party is predominantly Old Labour in nature. Tony Benn has a point when he says New Labour only exists in the cabinet.
the British people will ditch them at the next election.
Blair has kept a steady course economically , hes carried on the work of the Tories and kept things stable.
The Tories are bloody pathetic at the moment , they should be ripping Blair to shreds.
They should have voted Kenneth Clark or Michael Portillo as leader.
As things stand , Blair will most likely be re-elected again.
Rubbish, the British people are sick of being taken for a ride by right wing policies which mess up their public services and only benefit the rich. The right wing aren't even very good economically if you look at the evidence of the 1979-97 government especially when you consider the advantages they had which they blew - North Sea Oil, the reciepts from privatisation all wasted on keeping their head above water.
Gordon Brown has done an excellent job as Chancellor increased taxes, increased spending, increased jobs, made sure the poorest have seen the biggest increase to their income. As soon as we get rid of Blair the Tory cuckoo in our nest we can move on to much bigger changes under a real Labour Prime Minister.
Yes, the Tories are pathetic they don't seem to know how to face the 21st century and that people don't just want empty tax cuts anymore. It's even harder for them to win votes as all the old people who instinctively vote Tory, mainly out of loyalty to Churchill during the war, die off. They make virtually no positive impact on the young and indeed come third behind Labour and the Liberal Democrats in opinion polls of the 16-34 age group.
Labour will almost certainly be re-elected whether Blair will is another matter....
Of course it would not be.
It was a move to a hard-left position (influenced by Tony Benn in the early 1980's which inspired the hard-left manifesto in the 1983 election, which Labour lost badly (OK, yes there was the 'Falklands factor' in favour of Thatcher).
Labour had to change in order to be electable. Kinnock realised this and expelled the members of Militant within the party and modernised some of the policies of the party.
Tax increases can reduce aggregate demand and place an extra burden on business.
And you say this is a good thing???
The 1983 Conservative election victory was wholly dependent on the Falklands War, indeed cynics might say it was the only reason we responded to the Argentine invasion militarily, anyway if you look at the opinion poll ratings between 1979 and 1983 you can see a trend. Between 1979-1980 you see a steady slide down in Conservative support with a steady increase for Labour and Liberal support. Between 1981 and the start of the Falklands Campaign you see the Conservatives struggling between second and third place between Labour and the newly formed Liberal/SDP Alliance. Ironically the Conservatives are almost consistently third as Labour and the Alliance fight over the dominant position. The Falklands War sees Conservative support jump by approximately 15% giving them a commanding lead, mainly at the expense of the Liberal/SDP Alliance.
Labour had three main problems in the 1980s:
- Unappealing leaders
If Jim Callaghan continued as Labour leader into the 1980s or had he been replaced by Denis Healey you would see a higher share for the Labour vote. Labour hadn't grasped the issue of presentation yet and so chose Michael Foot who for all his intellectual qualities was not televisually appealling, neither was Neil Kinnock who suffered from being portrayed as the Welsh Windbag, something which may ultimately have cost him the 1992 election.
- The SDP/Liberal Alliance
They split the left-wing vote in most constituencies thus allowing Conservatives to slip through the middle, the Tories never got more than a third of the electorates votes but the split left-wing vote and the fight for being the main opposition which took place in 1983 stopped both parties putting up a decent challenge to the Conservatives.
- The Falklands War
It gave the Conservatives a huge boost which lasted into the 1983 election. Had they called the election in May 1984 they would have done a lot worse being then tied on opinion polls with Labour and being affected by the problems of the Miner's Strike.
In fact if you look at backing for policies most voters backed Labour's left-wing policies and to be honest New Labour did really throw the baby out with the bathwater in the 1997 manifesto, had they gone to the country with Blair and the 1992 manifesto, maybe even with the 1983 manifesto they still would have been elected.
Yes. Because government spending is a more steady and reliable boost to the economy. The government is more likely to buy British goods, therefore its spending will lead to more British people in jobs and more money in the economy. Government spending is a part of aggregate demand too or had you convienently forgotten that?
Yes I do, lower taxes just mean bigger profits for shareholders which is a waste of money. Whereas if you have higher taxes the money is spent on research and development, education of the workforce, investment in infrastructure and the maintainence of a decent workforce which helps business a lot more than lower taxes. Hence why Germany, France and the continental European business model provides longer term business stability and growth than our model does.