How do labour expect to get in with this sort of Front bench?
Discuss issues related to the politics of the UK, such as the actions of any MP, any current or potential law, or any other factor affecting the British political system.
| Announcements | Posted on | |
|---|---|---|
| TSR launches Learn Together! - Our new subscription to help improve your learning | 16-05-2013 | |
-
- Reputation:
- Thread Starter
- Banned
- Location: Huddersfield
- Posts: 3,209
How do labour expect to get in with this sort of Front bench?With regards to the next general election, of course the lib dems are finnished, and the labour vs tory votes will be quite close IMO, with those that have moved to UKIP moving back to the tories to keep labour out (as the former move is, IMHO, a pressure/protest move against Cameron's so-called social liberalism and not tought enough economic/socio-economic policy). Those disillusioned with new-labour who moved to the Lib Dems in 2010, or those who went from labour to lib dem, to Green/socialist parties, I think will rally in support of labour to keep the Tories out.
I'm largely apathetic to it, nothing will really change, the parties are almost identical with regards to official line coming from Milliband.
But when we look at the labour front bench, I mean really, this is the best they have?
State for Culture, Media and Sport - Harriet Harman
Treasury - Ed Balls
Justice - Sadiq Khan
Home Office - Yvette Cooper
Business, Innovation & Skills - Chuka Umunna
Health - Diane Abbott/Andy Burnham (who?)
Work & Pensions - Hon Liam Byrne (who?)
Education - Stephen Twigg (who?)
Communities and Local Government - Hilary Benn (who?)
Equalities Office - Yvette Cooper
Transport - Maria Eagle (who?)
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs - Mary Creagh (who?) -
- Reputation:
- Respected Member
- Posts: 153
Re: How do labour expect to get in with this sort of Front bench?The problem is that on both front benches, there is very little diversity and representation of the people. Most of the Labour and Conservative/Lib Dem front bench members are university educated career politicians who worked as advisors/researchers/lawyers etc. How can they claim to represent the people, or have the knowledge and expertise to make informed decisions? It's no wonder people are so disillusioned.
-
- Reputation:
- Exalted and Worshipped Member
- Posts: 1,012
Re: How do labour expect to get in with this sort of Front bench?This to me. It does certainly seem that there is very little difference between the three big political parties, or even the people at the top of them to be honest, generally seem to be middle-upper class, male, usually white, university educated (and usually one of the better/top universities at that) and middle aged. It's hardly representative of all the people in the country, let alone their hopes, fears, desires and so on...(Original post by biggie)
The problem is that on both front benches, there is very little diversity and representation of the people. Most of the Labour and Conservative/Lib Dem front bench members are university educated career politicians who worked as advisors/researchers/lawyers etc. How can they claim to represent the people, or have the knowledge and expertise to make informed decisions? It's no wonder people are so disillusioned.
Although I voted against AV in the recent refurrendum (because I didn't think it'd be as good as PR and wanted to get back at Nick Clegg...), I do think that to an extent, proportional representation would be a good thing, purely so that the other parties have a fighting chance for getting their views across in parliament. Sure you'd get extremist parties such as the BNP in there but at the end of the day if that's who some people vote for that is who they vote for, the current system of election I feel, denies the smaller parties much of a voice in parliament, (which for maybe the past 70-80 years has just been a swap of Labour-Tory-Labour-Tory) and sometimes it's the smaller parties which represent people much more than the big nation-wide parties do. -
- Reputation:
- Peer Of The TSR Realm
- Location: EU
Re: How do labour expect to get in with this sort of Front bench?To be fair, look at who the Tories are lining up against them- a front bench that couldn't even win in 2010 after 13 years of New Labour, against Brown as premier and in the midst of a massive recession.
Besides, there's bound to be some quite significant changes before 2015. It's not going to look the same in 2/3 years. -
- Reputation:
- Thread Starter
- Banned
- Location: Huddersfield
- Posts: 3,209
Re: How do labour expect to get in with this sort of Front bench?In my opinion, the only the reason the Tory's didn't get a huge majorty, which, when looking at the they really did,(Original post by creak)
To be fair, look at who the Tories are lining up against them- a front bench that couldn't even win in 2010 after 13 years of New Labour, against Brown as premier and in the midst of a massive recession.
Besides, there's bound to be some quite significant changes before 2015. It's not going to look the same in 2/3 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2010UKElectionMap.svg
(even on th3 05' map its similar)
The Lib dems, through Nick Cleggs clever politician spin, won a lot of votes from those that would have voted tory (despite not voting tory before) to keep Brown out, and of course, students. Though if we look at it, Millibands position of fees is largely the same as Cameron's. -
- Reputation:
- Thread Starter
- Banned
- Location: Huddersfield
- Posts: 3,209
Re: How do labour expect to get in with this sort of Front bench?I'd rather have the people running the country to be university educated rather than Barry the plumber who, according to his drunk friends and himself whilst rambling a load of solutions, should run the country.
Yes, career politicians suck. -
- Reputation:
- Overlord in Training
- Posts: 3,411
Re: How do labour expect to get in with this sort of Front bench?You don't really understand the difference between number of constituencies and size of constituencies do you? By your logic the lib dems are basically the same size as Labour.(Original post by prog2djent)
In my opinion, the only the reason the Tory's didn't get a huge majorty, which, when looking at the they really did,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2010UKElectionMap.svg
(even on th3 05' map its similar)
The Lib dems, through Nick Cleggs clever politician spin, won a lot of votes from those that would have voted tory (despite not voting tory before) to keep Brown out, and of course, students. Though if we look at it, Millibands position of fees is largely the same as Cameron's. -
- Reputation:
- Overlord in Training
- Posts: 2,479
Re: How do labour expect to get in with this sort of Front bench?Nevertheless, the boundaries did favour Labour, and the new boundaries (based on population) would have produced more Conservative MPs. Oh, and the Lib Dem vote share was 6% behind Labour.(Original post by Norton1)
You don't really understand the difference between number of constituencies and size of constituencies do you? By your logic the lib dems are basically the same size as Labour. -
- Reputation:
- Thread Starter
- Banned
- Location: Huddersfield
- Posts: 3,209
Re: How do labour expect to get in with this sort of Front bench?That's not the point, England is clearly a Tory country.(Original post by Norton1)
You don't really understand the difference between number of constituencies and size of constituencies do you? By your logic the lib dems are basically the same size as Labour. -
- Reputation:
- Respected Member
- Posts: 153
Re: How do labour expect to get in with this sort of Front bench?That's a ridiculous example and you know it. Clearly I meant that we require more scientists, engineers, businessmen, those with experience of real jobs and the real world, those who know how to generate real wealth (not selling debt), instead of those who are obsessed with their ideological beliefs from their uni's Tory/Labour club and would capitulate at the mere sight of a lobbyist. It's ruining the country and depriving us of the strong leaders we urgently require.(Original post by prog2djent)
I'd rather have the people running the country to be university educated rather than Barry the plumber who, according to his drunk friends and himself whilst rambling a load of solutions, should run the country.
Yes, career politicians suck. -
- Reputation:
- Overlord in Training
- Posts: 3,411
Re: How do labour expect to get in with this sort of Front bench?That wasn't what was actually said however. I don't really take your point, the UK was clearly not.(Original post by prog2djent)
That's not the point, England is clearly a Tory country. -
- Reputation:
- Peer Of The TSR Realm
- Location: EU
Re: How do labour expect to get in with this sort of Front bench?You do know this map is by geographical constituency size? Not proportion of the vote?(Original post by prog2djent)
In my opinion, the only the reason the Tory's didn't get a huge majorty, which, when looking at the they really did,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2010UKElectionMap.svg
(even on th3 05' map its similar)
The Lib dems, through Nick Cleggs clever politician spin, won a lot of votes from those that would have voted tory (despite not voting tory before) to keep Brown out, and of course, students. Though if we look at it, Millibands position of fees is largely the same as Cameron's. -
- Reputation:
- Overlord in Training
- Posts: 3,411
Re: How do labour expect to get in with this sort of Front bench?Not what was actually said in the post I responded to. I was talking about the size of the constituencies. You're talking about the boundaries. The map would look exactly the same if the boundaries were in the Tories favour as they would still win all the geographically large English consitituencies, they'd just win more at the edges of cities most likely.(Original post by chrisawhitmore)
Nevertheless, the boundaries did favour Labour, and the new boundaries (based on population) would have produced more Conservative MPs. Oh, and the Lib Dem vote share was 6% behind Labour. -
- Reputation:
- Benevolent Member
- Posts: 763
Re: How do labour expect to get in with this sort of Front bench?Wasn't that the only reason why people voted against AV? Lib Dem voters were left frothing at the mouth when Clegg sold them out - so naturally the public wanted to exert revenge however possible back at Nick Clegg.(Original post by TheHistoryStudent)
This to me. It does certainly seem that there is very little difference between the three big political parties, or even the people at the top of them to be honest, generally seem to be middle-upper class, male, usually white, university educated (and usually one of the better/top universities at that) and middle aged. It's hardly representative of all the people in the country, let alone their hopes, fears, desires and so on...
Although I voted against AV in the recent refurrendum (because I didn't think it'd be as good as PR and wanted to get back at Nick Clegg...), I do think that to an extent, proportional representation would be a good thing, purely so that the other parties have a fighting chance for getting their views across in parliament. Sure you'd get extremist parties such as the BNP in there but at the end of the day if that's who some people vote for that is who they vote for, the current system of election I feel, denies the smaller parties much of a voice in parliament, (which for maybe the past 70-80 years has just been a swap of Labour-Tory-Labour-Tory) and sometimes it's the smaller parties which represent people much more than the big nation-wide parties do.
I wonder how he sleeps at night... -
- Reputation:
- TSR Idol
- Location: London
Re: How do labour expect to get in with this sort of Front bench?I would agree with you, Labour do need a clearout, but then again they weren't beaten convincingly in the election, with the Tories having to form a coalition with a party that will disappear next election. Their problem is Ed Miliband, he needed to have an identity and a position first so that his shadow cabinet could follow suit and come up with actual policies rather than pick holes in the coalition's.(Original post by prog2djent)
With regards to the next general election, of course the lib dems are finnished, and the labour vs tory votes will be quite close IMO, with those that have moved to UKIP moving back to the tories to keep labour out (as the former move is, IMHO, a pressure/protest move against Cameron's so-called social liberalism and not tought enough economic/socio-economic policy). Those disillusioned with new-labour who moved to the Lib Dems in 2010, or those who went from labour to lib dem, to Green/socialist parties, I think will rally in support of labour to keep the Tories out.
I'm largely apathetic to it, nothing will really change, the parties are almost identical with regards to official line coming from Milliband.
But when we look at the labour front bench, I mean really, this is the best they have?
State for Culture, Media and Sport - Harriet Harman
Treasury - Ed Balls
Justice - Sadiq Khan
Home Office - Yvette Cooper
Business, Innovation & Skills - Chuka Umunna
Health - Diane Abbott/Andy Burnham (who?)
Work & Pensions - Hon Liam Byrne (who?)
Education - Stephen Twigg (who?)
Communities and Local Government - Hilary Benn (who?)
Equalities Office - Yvette Cooper
Transport - Maria Eagle (who?)
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs - Mary Creagh (who?) -
- Reputation:
- TSR Idol
- Location: England
- Posts: 8,234
Re: How do labour expect to get in with this sort of Front bench?I absolutely despise that ridiculous argument.(Original post by biggie)
The problem is that on both front benches, there is very little diversity and representation of the people. Most of the Labour and Conservative/Lib Dem front bench members are university educated career politicians who worked as advisors/researchers/lawyers etc. How can they claim to represent the people, or have the knowledge and expertise to make informed decisions? It's no wonder people are so disillusioned.
Being university educated in NO WAY, SHAPE OR FORM means you cannot "understand" life without a university degree. If you stop and think about it, hopefully you can understand the absolute lunacy of such a claim.
Moan all you want about how you think politicians don't care about the poor etc. - but them merely having a posh accent or attending a good school is NOT remotely relevant.
As to "career politicians" being evil, if they are so bad I have absolutely no idea why so many people keep electing them year after year (the only way you could possibly be a life-long MP is to be good enough at the job to be constantly re-elected).Last edited by callum9999; 16-06-2012 at 13:39.
