Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by Ham and Cheese)
    What the hell? By all means state your opinion but there is no need to be insulting.
    Truth hurts. That is all.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ham and Cheese)
    What the hell? By all means state your opinion but there is no need to be insulting.
    Well for starters you hold Tony Benn to be the ultimate symbol of the Left, of Old Labour. Before about 1976 when he got removed from the Cabinet by Jim Callaghan, Benn was as much a moderniser of the Party as any of those who would later leave for the SDP. Benn's conversion to be the firebrand preacher of the Left was a result of needing to find a new role in the party, so I wouldn't go taking him as the talisman of anything however sensible he seems now.

    Moreover, your view of the party is incredibly short-term and defined more by New Labour narratives than any real reading of the party's history. Neil Kinnock moved the party back to where it had been under Callaghan rather than moving it to the "centre-left". The Labour Party had been centre-left for a very long time, Foot's leadership was a blib but it remains, as with Ted Heath's leadership of the Tories before 1975, a point of departure for the New Labour court historians. Just as people swallow the Thatcherite myth of 1970s chaos, so you swallow the New Labour idea of Old Labour lunacy.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stricof)
    Truth hurts. That is all.
    Truth? Its a difference of opinion but opinions should be put forward in a civil and respectful manner.
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by Ham and Cheese)
    Truth? Its a difference of opinion but opinions should be put forward in a civil and respectful manner.
    Please. Adorno's comment was civil in retrospect to the nonsense you have spouted. Lets see if you have the temerity to respond to him - Or you dodge them and run away like you did after you posted in the Socialist Questions thread. There absolutely zero doubt that the current Labour Party stands as a Centre-Right Party.


    In the words of Bevan: This is my truth, tell me yours.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I used to consider myself centrist, but I have found myself drifting Left of late, I plan on voting for Labour in elections.

    I think Education and Healthcare should definitley be run by the state as essential services for the people, the stuff the coalition is doing makes me very uneasy, first the tuiton fees and now this privatisation/competition stuff in the NHS
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adorno)
    Well for starters you hold Tony Benn to be the ultimate symbol of the Left, of Old Labour. Before about 1976 when he got removed from the Cabinet by Jim Callaghan, Benn was as much a moderniser of the Party as any of those who would later leave for the SDP. Benn's conversion to be the firebrand preacher of the Left was a result of needing to find a new role in the party, so I wouldn't go taking him as the talisman of anything however sensible he seems now.
    I am holding Tony Benn on the left of the party because he was a firm left-winger. Your knowledge of the Labour Party probably exceeds mine because I have never looked at it in real depth but I know it represents my views well. In Peter Mandelson's memoirs (The Third Man) he talks about how he would have left the party if Tony Benn had been elected as the Deputy Leader because he was far too left-wing; surely the modernisers of the party were Neil Kinnock, Peter Mandelson, Tony Blair etc?

    Moreover, your view of the party is incredibly short-term and defined more by New Labour narratives than any real reading of the party's history. Neil Kinnock moved the party back to where it had been under Callaghan rather than moving it to the "centre-left". The Labour Party had been centre-left for a very long time, Foot's leadership was a blib but it remains, as with Ted Heath's leadership of the Tories before 1975, a point of departure for the New Labour court historians. Just as people swallow the Thatcherite myth of 1970s chaos, so you swallow the New Labour idea of Old Labour lunacy.
    As mentioned above, I am sure my knowledge of the Labour Party's history is perhaps limited compared to yours, but I am sure that the current Labour Party represents my views; could you say the same?

    Take a look at The Wilderness Years (1979-1997) and that is why I have said what I have about the Labour Party moving from the left to the centre in those years.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stricof)
    Please. Adorno's comment was civil in retrospect to the nonsense you have spouted. Lets see if you have the temerity to respond to him - Or you dodge them and run away like you did after you posted in the Socialist Questions thread. There absolutely zero doubt that the current Labour Party stands as a Centre-Right Party.


    In the words of Bevan: This is my truth, tell me yours.
    Either make a comment relevant to the debate or **** off obviously you cannot do civil discussions given all your comments tend to be obnoxious and confrontational.
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by Ham and Cheese)
    Either make a comment relevant to the debate or **** off obviously you cannot do civil discussions given all your comments tend to be obnoxious and confrontational.
    Wow. This my honourable members of the house is what we call a paradox.

    I don't owe you a single favour in explaining anything to you – In the past you have lacked the decency to a) read my arguments properly. This is clearly being shown through Adorno as well. b) respond adequately to my responses. Once again you have displayed them above. And c) prefer to move on to 'questions' rather than dealing with our issue.

    And please - all those questions you have asked, have already adequately answered.

    But do you want it in bullet form? Sure.

    Let me expand what Adorno said -
    Those who see New Labour as centre-left are kind of missing the point of what they were trying achieve. Old Labour (pre or post Michael Foot) was centre-Left. Jimmy Carter was centre-left. Heck even Bill Clinton was centre-left to a point. Blair and New Labour weren't. If you understand what the Left-Right spectrum is about, you'll know why. Until then, I would question whether Labour really is the place for you.
    The creation of the New Labour was effectively a response to the post-Thatcher consensus which dominated Britain from the mid-1980s onwards and which had spread through to the United States and most of Europe.
    • Now the argument for New Labour being placed as a centre of right party is that they were accepting of free markets. They (Blair et al) believed that free markets are the best way of creating wealth and economic progress.


    • New Labour promoted free market competition, even within public service institutions such as hospitals and schools. Furthermore they went back against their original defence of public ownership of property and were accepting of the decline in subsidised rented accommodation. Old Labour and the centre-left supported a range of personal services provided by local government, such as subsidised housing, social services and public health measures.


    • New Labour also made no attempt to exercise control over the economy on the basis of Post-Thatcher consensus. Pre Thatcher –they believed that state control of large strategic interests through nationalisation in order to prevent capitalist monopolies working against the public interest, and run them instead in the interests of their community and their own employees.


    • Furthermore by not restoring the powers of unions, they were accepting of the weakening of Trade Unions that had been done by Thatcher. Previously, Labour defended powerful trade unions and workers’ rights in order to promote justice in the workplace between employers and employees.


    • New Labour accepts inequality as a natural consequence through their acceptance of the free market. Previously they pursued equal rights and equality of opportunity.


    • Taxation has drifted up, but comparatively taxes on income have been held down and business taxes have been comparatively reduced on the belief that high taxation is unjust and is inhibiting. Previously they formed a strong consensus on redistribution of wealth and a support of the welfare system.

    So there. I have presented to you concrete evidence to suggest that New Labour is not and was never a centre-left Political Party due to upholding a lot of post-Thatcher consensus in their ideology.
    You really need to learn the key differences in the left-right political spectrum. I'll leave you to veneer your beliefs through loquacious drivel.

    As mentioned above, I am sure my knowledge of the Labour Party's history is perhaps limited compared to yours, but I am sure that the current Labour Party represents my views; could you say the same?
    You can do better than this. This is not the argument were pointing out. The Labour Party, at best is ideologically torn compared to the other main party in the UK.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stricof)
    Wow. This my honourable members of the house is what we call a paradox.

    I don't owe you a single favour in explaining anything to you – In the past you have lacked the decency to a) read my arguments properly. This is clearly being shown through Adorno as well. b) respond adequately to my responses. Once again you have displayed them above. And c) prefer to move on to 'questions' rather than dealing with our issue.

    And please - all those questions you have asked, have already adequately answered.
    The difference is that Adorno and myself are having a discussion about the Labour Party; it became an argument once you came in with your bucket of poop and a whisk and made your unhelpful comments earlier.

    But do you want it in bullet form? Sure.

    Let me expand what Adorno said -
    The creation of the New Labour was effectively a response to the post-Thatcher consensus which dominated Britain from the mid-1980s onwards and which had spread through to the United States and most of Europe.
    • Now the argument for New Labour being placed as a centre of right party is that they were accepting of free markets. They (Blair et al) believed that free markets are the best way of creating wealth and economic progress.


    • New Labour promoted free market competition, even within public service institutions such as hospitals and schools. Furthermore they went back against their original defence of public ownership of property and were accepting of the decline in subsidised rented accommodation. Old Labour and the centre-left supported a range of personal services provided by local government, such as subsidised housing, social services and public health measures.


    • New Labour also made no attempt to exercise control over the economy on the basis of Post-Thatcher consensus. Pre Thatcher –they believed that state control of large strategic interests through nationalisation in order to prevent capitalist monopolies working against the public interest, and run them instead in the interests of their community and their own employees.


    • Furthermore by not restoring the powers of unions, they were accepting of the weakening of Trade Unions that had been done by Thatcher. Previously, Labour defended powerful trade unions and workers’ rights in order to promote justice in the workplace between employers and employees.


    • New Labour accepts inequality as a natural consequence through their acceptance of the free market. Previously they pursued equal rights and equality of opportunity.


    • Taxation has drifted up, but comparatively taxes on income have been held down and business taxes have been comparatively reduced on the belief that high taxation is unjust and is inhibiting. Previously they formed a strong consensus on redistribution of wealth and a support of the welfare system.

    So there. I have presented to you concrete evidence to suggest that New Labour is not and was never a centre-left Political Party due to upholding a lot of post-Thatcher consensus in their ideology.
    You really need to learn the key differences in the left-right political spectrum. I'll leave you to veneer your beliefs through loquacious drivel.

    You can do better than this. This is not the argument were pointing out. The Labour Party, at best is ideologically torn compared to the other main party in the UK.
    Well thanks for regurgitating what Adorno has already said and you aren't pointing out anything; you have merely made one offensive remark and then repeated what my Honourable Friend, Adorno has said.

    My point is that the Labour Party represents my views; which was the first point when someone mentioned that the Labour Party wasn't for me.
    Offline

    15
    Read the above. I rest my case.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Can anyone tell me the current position of labour towards the trident nuclear deterrent and the 5th of May AV referendum, one of the main reasons that I voted lib-dem last year, I'm thinking of not voting for them at the next election or at least abstaining my vote (although i will vote yes at the referendum)

    thanks
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thegreatgatsby)
    Can anyone tell me the current position of labour towards the trident nuclear deterrent and the 5th of May AV referendum, one of the main reasons that I voted lib-dem last year, I'm thinking of not voting for them at the next election or at least abstaining my vote (although i will vote yes at the referendum)

    thanks
    Personally I believe that we should scrap Trident and I reckon that most people in TSR Labour will probably agree. In regards to the AV referendum, I am in favour of keeping First-Past-The-Post but views on electoral reform will be vary on who you are talking to
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by thegreatgatsby)
    Can anyone tell me the current position of labour towards the trident nuclear deterrent and the 5th of May AV referendum, one of the main reasons that I voted lib-dem last year, I'm thinking of not voting for them at the next election or at least abstaining my vote (although i will vote yes at the referendum)

    thanks
    RL labour are pro trident is seems, though my local party is very much against it. On AV is party is fairly split. Personaly I'll be voting aye as well.

    On TSR Labour there was a bill in 2009 to eliminate trident proposed by the TSR socialist party that failed, but found mostly support from the Labour party here. On AV, I think TSR Labour will be split as well.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thegreatgatsby)
    Can anyone tell me the current position of labour towards the trident nuclear deterrent and the 5th of May AV referendum, one of the main reasons that I voted lib-dem last year, I'm thinking of not voting for them at the next election or at least abstaining my vote (although i will vote yes at the referendum)

    thanks
    I supported the abolition of Trident but many members of the party are worried about the concequences of it so I guess we're in limbo on the subject.

    As for AV I duno if I like the idea of BNP having 10+ MP's but it should certainly be upto the public to decide.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    RL labour are pro trident is seems, though my local party is very much against it. On AV is party is fairly split. Personaly I'll be voting aye as well.

    On TSR Labour there was a bill in 2009 to eliminate trident proposed by the TSR socialist party that failed, but found mostly support from the Labour party here. On AV, I think TSR Labour will be split as well.
    Thanks for that. As there is obviously no general election for about 5 years (that is if the coalition stays together), I might vote labour if they appeal more to a "not exactly socialist", but at the same time not third way person like myself. (the 2010 lib-dem manifesto was almost more left then labours considering trident).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cardozo)
    As for AV I duno if I like the idea of BNP having 10+ MP's but it should certainly be upto the public to decide.
    There's no reason the BNP would be more likely to gain seats under AV than FPTP. They would still have to gain a majority in a single constituency to gain a seat.; just as they'd have to gain a plurality in a single seat under FPTP.

    I mean, there may be a marginal difference one way or the other, but I very much doubt we'd be looking at any BNP seats in the current political climate (of course that may change by 2015).
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by simontinsley)
    There's no reason the BNP would be more likely to gain seats under AV than FPTP. They would still have to gain a majority in a single constituency to gain a seat.; just as they'd have to gain a plurality in a single seat under FPTP.
    I'd be inclined to disagree there; AV gives voters two choices and I would reckon that the BNP would have been more likely to win in a seat like Barking because many voters would have chosen the BNP as their second choice. I doubt they would gain many seats but you might see them with one or two seats under AV.

    I will be voting 'no' in the referendum simply because I am a Labour man and FPTP is a good system for Labour. The only people who will really vote for AV are the people want to see more Coalition Governments (which clearly don't work) or if they support smaller parties.
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Ham and Cheese)
    I'd be inclined to disagree there; AV gives voters two choices and I would reckon that the BNP would have been more likely to win in a seat like Barking because many voters would have chosen the BNP as their second choice. I doubt they would gain many seats but you might see them with one or two seats under AV.

    I will be voting 'no' in the referendum simply because I am a Labour man and FPTP is a good system for Labour. The only people who will really vote for AV are the people want to see more Coalition Governments (which clearly don't work) or if they support smaller parties.
    Not really, I'll vote aye and I support Labour. Coalitions work pretty well tbh, even if I don't like the current actions of this one.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DayneD89)
    Not really, I'll vote aye and I support Labour. Coalitions work pretty well tbh, even if I don't like the current actions of this one.
    What benefits will AV bring to Labour? I'd much rather have a Labour majority than have a Labour Coalition with the Lib Dems.
    • Community Assistant
    • Wiki Support Team
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by Ham and Cheese)
    What benefits will AV bring to Labour? I'd much rather have a Labour majority than have a Labour Coalition with the Lib Dems.
    So would I. Of course I'd rather have a more socialist party than Labour, or have labour more socialist, but yes, I'd definitely rather a labour majority than a lib-lab coalition. It's an issue of principle.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: February 17, 2018
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.