Turn on thread page Beta

How do corbyns labour differ from new labour? watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    In your opinion how do you think they differ?


    Mistake in title BTW, should say 'does' instead of do.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Corbyns labour = old/original labour.
    New labour = Conservatives.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Corbyn's labour is committed to a mixed economy with higher taxes than that of new labours.
    new Labour is generally neoliberal and believes in lower taxation.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by alevelstress23)
    Mistake in title BTW, should say 'does' instead of do.
    You could always just amend the title. And if you're going to do that then you might as well capitalise the 'C' in 'corbyn' and the 'N' and 'L' in 'new labour' and 'labour' and add in the missing possessive apostrophe.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    the labour party are not in disarray and chaos

    the labour backbenchers are not against corbyn

    they won't "fly in David Miliband for a by election and overthrow corbyn"


    it's all a conspiracy to lure the conservatives into a false trap
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by york_wbu)
    Corbyns labour = old/original labour.
    New labour = Conservatives.
    Either this is a successful wind up or daft.

    New labour are not "tory lite", they fundamentally go against each other. New labour was about change, change of traditions & attitudes,
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    The difference between Corbyn's labour and new labour, is the difference between Corbyn's labour and the Tories.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by york_wbu)
    Corbyns labour = old/original labour.
    New labour = Conservatives.
    Don't you mean the face of old Labour with all of New Labour standing behind him? The naivety of the left never fails to astonish me. Do you really think the party has changed because of one man? His foot soldiers are still the same old dirt.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gears265)
    Don't you mean the face of old Labour with all of New Labour standing behind him? The naivety of the left never fails to astonish me. Do you really think the party has changed because of one man? His foot soldiers are still the same old dirt.
    Tell that to all the floating voters who elected "hug a hoodie" "heir to Blair" Cameron even though he had the likes of Iain Duncan Smith behind him
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    Tell that to all the floating voters who elected "hug a hoodie" "heir to Blair" Cameron even though he had the likes of Iain Duncan Smith behind him
    What has that got to do with it? If someone votes for Tories it is reasonable to assume they are centrist or right wing and so it is natural for them to float to his camp, do you really think there are left wing floaters or socialist floaters who flocked to the Tories- it is worth mentioning these are the Same people who express their hatred for the Tories day after day.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gears265)
    What has that got to do with it? If someone votes for Tories it is reasonable to assume they are centrist or right wing and so it is natural for them to float to his camp, do you really think there are left wing floaters or socialist floaters who flocked to the Tories- it is worth mentioning these are the Same people who express their hatred for the Tories day after day.
    I mean the sort of reasonable centrist people who were fed up with the Tories under Hague and IDS for being too reactionary, obsessing over irrelevant crap like Europe and failing to properly repudiate sleaze and inward-looking-ness. These people then thought they looked OK after Cameron modernised the brand and so forth.

    Admittedly it's a bit backwards as a comparison because with Cameron it was the centre repudiating the right wing but that's really just an effect of how the last period of Tory government had been right-wing while with Corbyn the last period of Labour government was centrist. One imagines that when the Tories are next defeated all the Colonel Blimps currently whinging about how Cameron is a socialist letting all the darkies in will have their own repudiation.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    I mean the sort of reasonable centrist people who were fed up with the Tories under Hague and IDS for being too reactionary, obsessing over irrelevant crap like Europe and failing to properly repudiate sleaze and inward-looking-ness. These people then thought they looked OK after Cameron modernised the brand and so forth.

    Admittedly it's a bit backwards as a comparison because with Cameron it was the centre repudiating the right wing but that's really just an effect of how the last period of Tory government had been right-wing while with Corbyn the last period of Labour government was centrist. One imagines that when the Tories are next defeated all the Colonel Blimps currently whinging about how Cameron is a socialist letting all the darkies in will have their own repudiation.
    Well to me I find all the lib/lab/con farce pathetic. The day all those 3 parties are wiped of the earth the better. They undergo changes and shifts to the right or left but at the end of the day they always arrive back at the establishment. I am proud to say I have and will never vote for them 3. They have had too much time in the game and have become engrained into the system. We need new, fresh parties who have had no share of power or opposition.

    But who am I kidding, you sheep continue to vote for these 3 clones. At least Scotland had the initiative to first ditch Tories and then Labour.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gears265)
    Well to me I find all the lib/lab/con farce pathetic. The day all those 3 parties are wiped of the earth the better. They undergo changes and shifts to the right or left but at the end of the day they always arrive back at the establishment. I am proud to say I have and will never vote for them 3. They have had too much time in the game and have engrained into the system. We need new, fresh parties who have had no share of power or opposition.
    I don't know about that, at the end of the day it amounts to the same thing, you either have a coalition type system with PR or a two party one with FPTP but the same people are still around, just under different banners. Hence why Corbs and Blair are in the same party while in Europe Blair would be with the Liberals and Corbyn the Communists or some such.

    I mean I do welcome the small parties and I would vote SNP in a heartbeat myself. The electoral turmoil in which such parties emerge is a finite period where the "it all amounts to the same thing" thing breaks down a little bit. The emergence of PR-like small parties under FPTP means it happens with a long delay and they are fairly easily killed off. Thus with respect to the free market in political party formation FPTP seems to me what free market types would call an externality: the electoral system doesn't change as freely/dynamically as political opinion so when it gets out of step there is the potential for competitive disadvantage, as UKIP found, or advantage, as the SNP found.

    As for the lack of corruption in smaller parties due to not having held much in the way of high office, that again is a good thing but one which will only last for one or two electoral cycles. Look how quick people fell out of love with Syriza or how as soon as Labour got into power in 1945 they were sending troops to break strikes the same as anyone else. Remember that Farage has been in politics since the early 1990s, Salmond since the 1970s, you think these men haven't learned a thing or two about corruption and chicanery? It's almost better to have Labour and Tory apparatchiks cycled in every five or ten years.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    I don't know about that, at the end of the day it amounts to the same thing, you either have a coalition type system with PR or a two party one with FPTP but the same people are still around, just under different banners. Hence why Corbs and Blair are in the same party while in Europe Blair would be with the Liberals and Corbyn the Communists or some such.

    I mean I do welcome the small parties and I would vote SNP in a heartbeat myself. The electoral turmoil in which such parties emerge is a period where the "it all amounts to the same thing" thing breaks down a little bit. The emergence of PR-like small parties under FPTP means it happens with a long delay and they are fairly easily killed off. Thus with respect to the free market in political party formation FPTP seems to me what free market types would call an externality: the electoral system doesn't change as freely/dynamically as political opinion so when it gets out of step there is the potential for competitive disadvantage, as UKIP found, or advantage, as the SNP found.
    Well I guess we will have to disagree on that. Politics is changing and undergoing generational change. Before, a kid's parents would drill Tory or Labour nonsense down their necks. The hatred between both parties would transfer on to the kids of the corresponding supporters. However, now we have a generation of Ukippers, Greens, Scottish nationalists, Welsh nationalists and on and on. The kids from these voters will not be growing up with the Tory and Labour rhetoric. It takes time but we are moving that way.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    New Labour was electable
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gears265)
    Well I guess we will have to disagree on that. Politics is changing and undergoing generational change. Before, a kid's parents would drill Tory or Labour nonsense down their necks. The hatred between both parties would transfer on to the kids of the corresponding supporters. However, now we have a generation of Ukippers, Greens, Scottish nationalists, Welsh nationalists and on and on. The kids from these voters will not be growing up with the Tory and Labour rhetoric. It takes time but we are moving that way.
    It all sounds like "my generation is special" nonsense to me I'm afraid. Seen it all before with Cleggmania and old people saw it with the SDP and so on or even for example the SNP surge of the 70s. I'm sure that as ever there is change afoot but not really any more or less than in previous generations, although the names and banners may fragment.

    The big battles between the big two parties were really only relevant from 1945 to 1974, maybe two generations? And big parties always seem to fragment anyway, in the UK if not in the US. It was all fairly fleeting in the grand scheme of things, same as a lot of stuff we take for granted like workers' rights and social housing and benefits. If you want fragmentation you should have seen what political parties were getting up to in the pre-war period.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    It all sounds like "my generation is special" nonsense to me I'm afraid. Seen it all before with Cleggmania and old people saw it with the SDP and so on or even for example the SNP surge of the 70s. I'm sure that as ever there is change afoot but not really any more or less than in previous generations, although the names and banners may fragment.

    The big battles between the big two parties were really only relevant from 1945 to 1974, maybe two generations? And big parties always seem to fragment anyway, in the UK if not in the US. It was all fairly fleeting in the grand scheme of things, same as a lot of stuff we take for granted like workers' rights and social housing and benefits. If you want fragmentation you should have seen what political parties were getting up to in the pre-war period.
    We will have to wait and see, I can't see things not changing but hey I could be very wrong but I look forward to the future of politics regardless.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gears265)
    We will have to wait and see, I can't see things not changing but hey I could be very wrong but I look forward to the future of politics regardless.
    Can't say fairer than that, here's to many decades of arguments yet to come :tee:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by djj)
    Either this is a successful wind up or daft.

    New labour are not "tory lite", they fundamentally go against each other. New labour was about change, change of traditions & attitudes,
    Corbyn goes back to the labour roots. He shares the same kind of ideologies and policies with people like clement atlee and people before him.

    New labour were very much red tories. The whole party has been shifted to the right. When asked what was Margaret Thatcher's biggest achievement as pm, she responded "Tony Blair and New Labour. We forced our opponents to change".
 
 
 

3,314

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should universities take a stronger line on drugs?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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.