SonOfTheGun
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#1









Goodnight Sweet Prince :moon:
2
reply
BaronK
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#2
Report 3 years ago
#2
Tony Blairr.
Tony Blairr
Tony Blairr
Tony Blairr
0
reply
username878267
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#3
Report 3 years ago
#3
Yes, they were. The problem is we shouldn't cling to them. Due to their successes lots in Labour became complacent and thought they could always win under the 'New Labour' model.

Just as it is wrong to look back to the 70s (ie Corbyn), it is also wrong to look back to the 90s. Parties must evolve to the current times and dare I say it but that's what the tories have done (well in perception, not reality).

I think if nothing else Corbyn's victory has reawoken the Labour party and taught the 'moderate' side of the party they need their own, fresh new ideas and can't just appeal to Blairism.

If it means someone like Umunna or Dan Jarvis comes forward with a fresh new programme it will have been worth it.
2
reply
MagicNMedicine
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#4
Report 3 years ago
#4
Labour's golden age was really 1994 to 2002. From the point Blair became leader to the Iraq war Labour dominated British politics and the Tories had no answer. After that the Blair-Brown split started to become toxic and the party lost its way in the later years of government.

That Labour government was a defining government, like the Thatcher government, because it shifted the terms of debate permanently. You now have a Conservative government with an apparently endless spell in office stretching ahead of it and little risk of challenge from the opposition but it's moving to raise the minimum wage, legislated on gay marriage, ring fencing the overseas aid budget at a time of tightening spending on everything else. Later this year we will see a Conservative government leading the campaign to keep Britain in the EU. Also it has focused income tax cuts on the bottom end of the distribution whereas earlier Tory governments made the biggest cuts at the top end. Osborne actually has the top rate at 45% when it was only 40% under Labour right till the last six weeks they were in office.

The Tories aren't doing these things because they fear Labour but because that's the mainstream of new politics. The Blair government left a long legacy like the Thatcher government did.

I think the current Conservative government will also shape some of the future terms of political debate as well, if it has a long term in office. Their main goal seems to be to shape in two areas:
- Putting fiscal policy to the front of the agenda and focusing on balanced budgets
- Securing Britain's place in the EU and kicking the European debate (which has dogged the Conservative party especially for three decades) in to the long grass for a long time ahead
1
reply
SonOfTheGun
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#5
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#5
(Original post by Bornblue)
Yes, they were. The problem is we shouldn't cling to them. Due to their successes lots in Labour became complacent and thought they could always win under the 'New Labour' model.

Just as it is wrong to look back to the 70s (ie Corbyn), it is also wrong to look back to the 90s. Parties must evolve to the current times and dare I say it but that's what the tories have done (well in perception, not reality).

I think if nothing else Corbyn's victory has reawoken the Labour party and taught the 'moderate' side of the party they need their own, fresh new ideas and can't just appeal to Blairism.
Labour's failing in the last election and their current struggling is nothing to do with clinging onto Blairism, if anything it is the failing to stand by the values which brought success to begin with.

The moderates need to strengthen and refuse to give any ground to far left Corbynites.


(Original post by Bornblue)
If it means someone like Umunna or Dan Jarvis comes forward with a fresh new programme it will have been worth it.
Surprised to hear you say that but I agree. I would love to see a more right wing Umunna tear up an election, but thanks to the cancerous piece of **** we currently have in charge, this won't happen until 2024/5 earliest.
0
reply
RayApparently
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#6
Report 3 years ago
#6
I always liked Gordon Brown.
0
reply
Swanbow
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#7
Report 3 years ago
#7
I'll take Jack Straw and Gordon Brown.

But you can keep Blair and Mandelson.
0
reply
Howard
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#8
Report 3 years ago
#8
Surely Labour's golden age was post WWII when they pursued policies and programmes that reflected their heritage as a working man's party. NHS, Education reforms etc?
2
reply
Swanbow
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#9
Report 3 years ago
#9
(Original post by MagicNMedicine)
- Putting fiscal policy to the front of the agenda and focusing on balanced budgets
To be fair I don't even think Osborne is that bothered with achieving a balanced budget by 2020 with the current rate of cuts. However the rhetoric is very important, and so long as the Tories bang on about it and blame the entire financial crash on overspending the electorate will remain distant from Labour. In reality if debt as a percentage of GDP remains steady or decreases the UK will be alright.
1
reply
username878267
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#10
Report 3 years ago
#10
(Original post by SonOfTheGun)
Labour's failing in the last election and their current struggling is nothing to do with clinging onto Blairism, if anything it is the failing to stand by the values which brought success to begin with.

The moderates need to strengthen and refuse to give any ground to far left Corbynites.




Surprised to hear you say that but I agree. I would love to see a more right wing Umunna tear up an election, but thanks to the cancerous piece of **** we currently have in charge, this won't happen until 2024/5 earliest.
I don't think Labour lost the last election because they were too left or right wing.
It was two main factors;
1.) they weren't trusted on the economy
2.) The impeding SNP landslide which allowed the tories to whip up fear of the SNP in England.


Let us not forget that Miliband actually got a million more votes then Brown. And Blair and Brown were no longer trusted on the economy.

Of course you should look to past successes but the problem happens if you don't evolve and that's what New Labour didn't do.
They didn't evolve and change. The policies of the 90s aren't what we need today.

It will take something similar to New Labour in terms of freshness and a new proposal.

I actually quite like Umunna. He is very forward thinking and has lots of new ideas.
0
reply
MagicNMedicine
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#11
Report 3 years ago
#11
(Original post by Swanbow)
To be fair I don't even think Osborne is that bothered with achieving a balanced budget by 2020 with the current rate of cuts. However the rhetoric is very important, and so long as the Tories bang on about it and blame the entire financial crash on overspending the electorate will remain distant from Labour. In reality if debt as a percentage of GDP remains steady or decreases the UK will be alright.
But Osborne may well be Prime Minister in 2020 and so he cannot backtrack on his commitment to a balanced budget.

The era from 2020 to 2025 will be a testing one for Osborne in this regard especially as the odds of going another 10 years with no recession are slim and a recession would usually put about 4 to 5 per cent on to the deficit.

If this happens he will be in a very difficult position because after a long period in office it will be hard to blame anyone else and it will be hard to make his pitch of "I am the one you can trust on the economy". The Conservatives were scuppered after falling out of the ERM in 1992 as they couldn't use that "economy" pitch any more and they were defenceless against Blair.
0
reply
The meal
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#12
Report 3 years ago
#12
I don't know why you are complaining. Corbyn will win with an overwhelming majority come 2020. The support he has wracked up has never been seen before. He could ensure a Labour government for at least 30 years, he is that popular. Go anywhere in Britain and people are in love with him and his politics
1
reply
Swanbow
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#13
Report 3 years ago
#13
(Original post by MagicNMedicine)
But Osborne may well be Prime Minister in 2020 and so he cannot backtrack on his commitment to a balanced budget.

The era from 2020 to 2025 will be a testing one for Osborne in this regard especially as the odds of going another 10 years with no recession are slim and a recession would usually put about 4 to 5 per cent on to the deficit.

If this happens he will be in a very difficult position because after a long period in office it will be hard to blame anyone else and it will be hard to make his pitch of "I am the one you can trust on the economy". The Conservatives were scuppered after falling out of the ERM in 1992 as they couldn't use that "economy" pitch any more and they were defenceless against Blair.
That said his commitment to wipe the deficit by 2015 didn't really scupper the Tories chances in 2015. Also depending on the EU referendum result we could, God forbid, even be looking at Boris becoming the next Prime Minister.

We aren't really prepared for the next recession, and if it bites in this term or the next the Tories will lose their only real argument that has kept them afloat. Even a halt in the housing market could have catastrophic consequences. That said whether the public would jump ship to the Labour party under Corbyn or another leftist in such a situation is debatable. Hell Tim Farron might come out such a situation better than anyone else.
0
reply
MagicNMedicine
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#14
Report 3 years ago
#14
(Original post by Swanbow)
That said his commitment to wipe the deficit by 2015 didn't really scupper the Tories chances in 2015.
That's because we were one term in to a Tory government and he had an argument which went: we didn't achieve what we planned to because the economy was growing slowly, the economy is still in a perilous place, you can't trust Labour you can only trust me in these difficult times.

The longer the Tories are in office the more difficult that argument gets. In order to sustain the argument that "we are the party to trust on the economy" they need to have some good economic performance to point to, but then if they big up the economy that removes the chance to use the poor economic climate as an excuse. And if they try to talk about a poor economic climate to push the "in these times you can only trust the Tories" argument then after two terms in office it undermines their claims to have turned the economy round.

(Original post by Swanbow)
We aren't really prepared for the next recession, and if it bites in this term or the next the Tories will lose their only real argument that has kept them afloat. Even a halt in the housing market could have catastrophic consequences. That said whether the public would jump ship to the Labour party under Corbyn or another leftist in such a situation is debatable. Hell Tim Farron might come out such a situation better than anyone else.
Over time public opinion and the relative order of salient political issues changes and this is what will herald the next turnover of power. At the moment the Tories have been able to create scapegoats with tough rhetoric against people on benefits etc and are enjoying the benefit of looking like tough strong realists against touchy-feely lefties. But after a lengthy period in office when everyone holds their complaints at your door this is the recipe for looking out of touch. In the 1990s there were lots of social problems due to the disastrous state of public services. Schools had decrepit buildings, the NHS was in real bad state - back then if you needed an operation you were waiting 18-24 months and there were loads of stories of patients dying on trolleys in hospitals. Crime was at an all time high which undermined one of the Tories' main selling points as the party that's tough on crime. When Peter Lilley was delighting the Tory conference with his mocking of people on benefits in council estates it just showed the Tories as being massively out of touch with reality, when people were angry about elderly relatives dying with little dignity in underfunded hospitals when the Tories were talking about toughness on benefits and calling for more cuts it just did not wash with people.

If the cuts go on long enough this will happen again and this is where the Tories down the line may find the fatal cocktail if a recession hits as well and pushes the deficit back up. The public's appetite for cuts will be gone, they will demand investment in public services, and if the deficit has jumped back up after a recession and unemployment has risen there will be no counter argument from the Tories.

My view of what Corbyn is doing now is that he does not honestly expect to be PM, but he wants to secure the structures of the Labour party in the hands of the membership so that even if the next leader is not as much of the old left as him, there will be more of a traditional socialist emphasis in Labour and down the line that party will be ready to benefit from the point where the Tory castle collapses.
5
reply
username878267
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#15
Report 3 years ago
#15
(Original post by MagicNMedicine)
That's because we were one term in to a Tory government and he had an argument which went: we didn't achieve what we planned to because the economy was growing slowly, the economy is still in a perilous place, you can't trust Labour you can only trust me in these difficult times.

The longer the Tories are in office the more difficult that argument gets. In order to sustain the argument that "we are the party to trust on the economy" they need to have some good economic performance to point to, but then if they big up the economy that removes the chance to use the poor economic climate as an excuse. And if they try to talk about a poor economic climate to push the "in these times you can only trust the Tories" argument then after two terms in office it undermines their claims to have turned the economy round.



Over time public opinion and the relative order of salient political issues changes and this is what will herald the next turnover of power. At the moment the Tories have been able to create scapegoats with tough rhetoric against people on benefits etc and are enjoying the benefit of looking like tough strong realists against touchy-feely lefties. But after a lengthy period in office when everyone holds their complaints at your door this is the recipe for looking out of touch. In the 1990s there were lots of social problems due to the disastrous state of public services. Schools had decrepit buildings, the NHS was in real bad state - back then if you needed an operation you were waiting 18-24 months and there were loads of stories of patients dying on trolleys in hospitals. Crime was at an all time high which undermined one of the Tories' main selling points as the party that's tough on crime. When Peter Lilley was delighting the Tory conference with his mocking of people on benefits in council estates it just showed the Tories as being massively out of touch with reality, when people were angry about elderly relatives dying with little dignity in underfunded hospitals when the Tories were talking about toughness on benefits and calling for more cuts it just did not wash with people.

If the cuts go on long enough this will happen again and this is where the Tories down the line may find the fatal cocktail if a recession hits as well and pushes the deficit back up. The public's appetite for cuts will be gone, they will demand investment in public services, and if the deficit has jumped back up after a recession and unemployment has risen there will be no counter argument from the Tories.

My view of what Corbyn is doing now is that he does not honestly expect to be PM, but he wants to secure the structures of the Labour party in the hands of the membership so that even if the next leader is not as much of the old left as him, there will be more of a traditional socialist emphasis in Labour and down the line that party will be ready to benefit from the point where the Tory castle collapses.
Your posts on here are brilliant. Rep given.
How do you think a younger 'moderate' like Jarvis or Umunna would do at the moment if they were leader? Especially given the former is ex-army so couldn't be tarred as 'hating Britain'.
0
reply
MagicNMedicine
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#16
Report 3 years ago
#16
(Original post by Bornblue)
Your posts on here are brilliant. Rep given.
How do you think a younger 'moderate' like Jarvis or Umunna would do at the moment if they were leader? Especially given the former is ex-army so couldn't be tarred as 'hating Britain'.
Hard to say. At the moment they would find it difficult to keep the party onside given that the party supports Corbyn but if things seem to be going badly for a couple of years they would be more receptive.

I think Jarvis, Umunna and also potentially Keir Starmer would be potential contenders.

Jarvis and Starmer would have the same characteristic as Blair in that they would both be personalities that the Tory party would feel comfortable having as leader and so they would eat in to Tory votes.
0
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#17
Report 3 years ago
#17
(Original post by Bornblue)
Yes, they were. The problem is we shouldn't cling to them. Due to their successes lots in Labour became complacent and thought they could always win under the 'New Labour' model.

Just as it is wrong to look back to the 70s (ie Corbyn), it is also wrong to look back to the 90s. Parties must evolve to the current times and dare I say it but that's what the tories have done (well in perception, not reality).

I think if nothing else Corbyn's victory has reawoken the Labour party and taught the 'moderate' side of the party they need their own, fresh new ideas and can't just appeal to Blairism.

If it means someone like Umunna or Dan Jarvis comes forward with a fresh new programme it will have been worth it.
An excellent post.
0
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#18
Report 3 years ago
#18
(Original post by Howard)
Surely Labour's golden age was post WWII when they pursued policies and programmes that reflected their heritage as a working man's party. NHS, Education reforms etc?
Essentially there have been 5 main shifts of power since 1945; in 1951, 1964, 1979, 1997 and 2010

The Tories were rejected in the midst of scandal in 1964 and in division coupled with a perception of lack of competency in 1997.

Labour's main policies were rejected in favour of quite radically different policies by the electorate in both 1951 and 1979. 2010 has a lot of similarities to 1997.

The problem with the golden age of Labour in 1945/51 was that the electorate didn't see it that way (strictly speaking a wide enough group of the electorate didn't see it because Labour piled up huge numbers of votes in their heartland).
0
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#19
Report 3 years ago
#19
(Original post by Bornblue)
Yes, they were. The problem is we shouldn't cling to them. Due to their successes lots in Labour became complacent and thought they could always win under the 'New Labour' model.

Just as it is wrong to look back to the 70s (ie Corbyn), it is also wrong to look back to the 90s. Parties must evolve to the current times and dare I say it but that's what the tories have done (well in perception, not reality).

I think if nothing else Corbyn's victory has reawoken the Labour party and taught the 'moderate' side of the party they need their own, fresh new ideas and can't just appeal to Blairism.

If it means someone like Umunna or Dan Jarvis comes forward with a fresh new programme it will have been worth it.
Ultimately the key reason why governments lose is that they run out of talent.

They lose ministers over the side, but those ex-ministers go to the backbenches and limit the opportunities for new blood to become MPs. The replacement ministers are usually less talented than those they replaced, which is why they weren't the first choice.

Oppositions replace talent much more quickly. Ex-ministers vanish. There are more vacancies and when an opposition becomes the new government, by definition a lot of new MPs enter.

That isn't going to happen this time. Talented mainstream Labour supporters will stay away from becoming candidates until Corbyn has gone. There will be mass retirements on the Tory side from the EU vote losers.

The Labour shadow cabinet of 1997 was much more talented than the outgoing Conservative cabinet. The Conservative shadow cabinet of 2010 was much more talented that the outgoing Labour cabinet. This was more acute in 2015 when Cameron was able to bring in new blood previously kept out by the Liberals. Moreover Cameron made sure that he lost few first XI players between 2010-2015.
0
reply
username878267
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#20
Report 3 years ago
#20
(Original post by nulli tertius)
Ultimately the key reason why governments lose is that they run out of talent.

They lose ministers over the side, but those ex-ministers go to the backbenches and limit the opportunities for new blood to become MPs. The replacement ministers are usually less talented than those they replaced, which is why they weren't the first choice.

Oppositions replace talent much more quickly. Ex-ministers vanish. There are more vacancies and when an opposition becomes the new government, by definition a lot of new MPs enter.

That isn't going to happen this time. Talented mainstream Labour supporters will stay away from becoming candidates until Corbyn has gone. There will be mass retirements on the Tory side from the EU vote losers.

The Labour shadow cabinet of 1997 was much more talented than the outgoing Conservative cabinet. The Conservative shadow cabinet of 2010 was much more talented that the outgoing Labour cabinet. This was more acute in 2015 when Cameron was able to bring in new blood previously kept out by the Liberals. Moreover Cameron made sure that he lost few first XI players between 2010-2015.
Labour's biggest problem though was that it didn't adapt and freshen up.
What worked in 1997, worked in 1997 and 2001. It had begun to stop working in 2005 and by 2010 it had totally run out of steam. Now certain members still keep saying 'let's do what we did in 1997'.

Parties need to evolve and freshen up their approach and that's what the tories are so good at.

In the 70s and 80s they recognised a more hardline approach was needed. When Thatcher started to become toxic to the public they recognised a softer approach was needed and chose Major which allowed them to win in 1992. Following New Labour, they recognised a 'softer' (in appearance not reality) candidate was needed and went for a 'cenrist' (in perception) over the hard right.

They constantly evolved, sometimes they got it wrong like with IDS but generally they got it right.

That's what Labour now needs to do. It needs to evolve and become a fresh, new exciting party again.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
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

People at uni: do initiations (like heavy drinking) put you off joining sports societies?

Yes (15)
68.18%
No (7)
31.82%

Watched Threads

View All