Labour Party Manifesto shows 'Radicalism' Watch

RayApparently
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#1
Labour are often accused of being 'Tory-lite' or some such nonsense. Its a lie repeated often enough and plausibly enough to be true. The Conservatives delight in it, but the Greens/SNP/Plaid Cymru are loving it even more. Miliband hasn't been the best at communicating his message, but the 2015 manifesto shows hints of radicalism that are truly incredible.

Wether that's a good thing or not... is up to you.


  • Abolition of the House of Lords (and replacing with an elected Senate).
  • Votes for 16 and 17 year olds.
  • Devolution to English regions.
  • 'Home Rule Bill' for Scotland (tax powers, welfare etc.)
  • Welsh Devolution akin to current Scottish Devolution.
  • Abolition of zero-hours contracts.
  • £8 Minimum Wage by 2019.
  • Energy Bills frozen until 2017.
  • 10p starting rate of Income Tax.
  • English and Maths studied to age 18.
  • Rent rise ceilings on 3-year tenancies.
  • Force firms to publish their gender-pay gap.


For all their sins Labour's proposals are dramatic. The Greens on the left calling them neo-liberal sellouts and the Tories on the right calling them socialistic fools its about time we started seeing it how it is.
0
reply
The_Mighty_Bush
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#2
Report 3 years ago
#2
I most people would agree that the current Labour party are further to the left than Blair's Labour party. It's just a question of whether you think that is a good thing or whether Labour will remain true to their promises.
0
reply
CatAttack
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#3
Report 3 years ago
#3
I really think it's pretty radical, yet people keep saying "Tory red and blue". Personelly view the reform the Lords as a big example of how Millibands labour will be rather radical.
1
reply
gladders
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#4
Report 3 years ago
#4
All sounds good, but the electing the Lords one is a turn-off for me. Why break what works? Reform it, sure, into an effective, unelected second chamber, but otherwise, this is a harmful idea.

I suspect it's a sop to those who think such a proposal is a vote-winner when it's not.
1
reply
DenKodz
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#5
Report 3 years ago
#5
(Original post by gladders)
All sounds good, but the electing the Lords one is a turn-off for me. Why break what works? Reform it, sure, into an effective, unelected second chamber, but otherwise, this is a harmful idea.

I suspect it's a sop to those who think such a proposal is a vote-winner when it's not.
I personally agree with you. There's no need to make the HoL an elected chamber. I mean unless someone has a detailed explanation on why it will be a positive change, questions arise like 'who' will be the electorate (because come on, giving the public actual power is dangerous, period. A senate might work on the other hand. But would you pick 'might' over what already works? Eh no need.)

In terms of reform, since the 1999's House of Lord Act, there's really not that much need for one. I mean come on, we got rid most hereditary peers. Now just kick out the remaining ones and focus on internal reform regarding how often peers actually have to turn up, rather than the whole thing itself.

But on topic, what Labour should be focusing on is the ever increasing division within their own party. I like some of Corbyn's proposals and ideas, I personally like his approach to politics - it's classic and new to most. But like any leader, he has to focus on bringing his party together, because otherwise the manifesto might as well rest on some old shelf. Because at the moment it's questionable whenever labour will even stand a chance in the next election.
0
reply
gladders
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#6
Report 3 years ago
#6
(Original post by DenKodz)
I personally agree with you. There's no need to make the HoL an elected chamber. I mean unless someone has a detailed explanation on why it will be a positive change, questions arise like 'who' will be the electorate (because come on, giving the public actual power is dangerous, period. A senate might work on the other hand. But would you pick 'might' over what already works? Eh no need.)
I'm comfortable with giving the electorate power - the elect the House of Commons, after all - but having two elected chambers representing the same constituency is an complete waste of time - useless and dangerous.
0
reply
Davij038
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#7
Report 3 years ago
#7
Remove the bishops and cap to a degree. But yes, mixed government is a good thing IMO.
0
reply
ChaoticButterfly
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#8
Report 3 years ago
#8
How is that radicalism? That's the most bog standard social democrat luke warm reforms.

I'm not stupid. :indiff:
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Where do you need more help?

Which Uni should I go to? (57)
15.62%
How successful will I become if I take my planned subjects? (33)
9.04%
How happy will I be if I take this career? (72)
19.73%
How do I achieve my dream Uni placement? (54)
14.79%
What should I study to achieve my dream career? (40)
10.96%
How can I be the best version of myself? (109)
29.86%

Watched Threads

View All