[ Parent ]

No, I'm sorry Mr Harris - you have the power to change things, and you have chosen instead to allow New Labour to continue to betray our values. WE never get the chance to speak, to have our views heard by the party elite - you do, and yet you do nothing to make this party better. I think that's so sad. You know as well as I do that there was no need to abandon Labour values to get elected - and yet you've allowed it to happen. So I'm sorry if those of us without power become exasperated that those of you who can change things are so caught up in your petty westminster bubble and so trapped in the past that you can't see the dire problems we face. You'll get some respect from me when you start doing something to put Labour values at the heart of everything we do - until then, you're just another sycophant intent on betraying our most basic beliefs - you probably don't even think the 10p tax scandal was wrong, do you? And I expect you don't think rising inequality's a problem either, or the failure to tackle poverty or council housing? Well, the rest of us do, so I'm sorry if that's 'offensive'.

[ Parent ]

Is anyone saying we should? Name names!

[ Parent ]

I wouldn't agree that this government has achieved the most in terms of delivery (I think the '45-'51 government delivered more, mainly in the first few years), but it has delivered a lot and I disagree with those who, elsewhere, have talked about the government as a 'failure'.  I do think it has been a massive missed opportunity in many ways, and there are some things it has done which I think are enormously damaging and wrong. 

But I honestly think that characterising the policy suggestions coming from the left as a 'core vote strategy' is wrong.  I am certainly not suggesting we should 'retreat back to our core vote alone'.  I think we should get our 'core vote' back.  But I also think we need to get the rest of that winning coalition back (indeed I now see that winning coalition from '97 as our real core vote): we don't just need the votes of our traditional supporters.  We need the votes of pensioners (a massive tranche of active voters) - they used to be part of our winning coalition, and could be again if we made radical strides on linking the state pension to average earnings, bringing more of the low paid out of taxation, looking at the impact of council tax on pensioners, etc.  We need the votes of students - they used to be part of our winning coalition, and could be again if we looked again at student finances (particularly university fees) as well as looking at bringing more of the low paid out of taxation, challenging age discrimination in pay and rights for temporary and agency workers.  We need the votes of public sector workers - they used to be part of our winning coalition, and could be again if we looked at the pay settlements that they've received, trade union rights, the rights of temporary and agency workers, stopped PFIs and other part-privatisations in public services and instead brought in a new era of public service reform that put the needs of workers and service-users ahead of the desire for private consultancies to grab tax payers' money.  We need the votes of people - of any background - who are generally progressive and socially liberal.  They used to be part of our winning coalition, and could be again if we ditched the 42 detention and ID cards, and demonstrated our beliefs in fairness and equality in the other policy areas I've referred to (not least the next potential 10p scandal - the plight of the genuinely disabled in the face of incoming welfare 'reforms').  I could go on: peace activists, environmentalists, etc, etc.  These are huge swathes of the electorate who, alongside our traditional supporters, brought us to power in '97.  And we could win them back.

And yes, I do believe those sorts of policies and that sort of 'strategy' could win us the next election.  But it isn't a PR strategy, it's a political philosophy, and one which brought the Labour Party into being and has seen it through dark days and bright and has behind all its great successes, in governments that chose to include the word 'New' and those that didn't.  I call it socialism; I don't care what others choose to call it, we just need to get on with implementing it!

[ Parent ]

Group51 - Yes, well, atleast some of us do. Is that ok, because I can stop if you like...

[ Parent ]

I find Tom Harris completely tone deaf to the current electorate.  It's very depressing.

[ Parent ]

Government has already addressed the 10p issue, and can't run the global economy.  So I'm afraid we'll have to do more.

[ Parent ]

Great stuff. And let's not forget only a million more people voted Labour in 2005 than in 1983! Were it not for the quirks of our electoral system, we'd be nothing - and yet they pretend the country loves New Labourism. The fact is there's plenty of people out there who'd support a sensible democratic socialist platform - particularly if we had AV and compulsory voting. Why, then, do we pretend that we have to appease the middle classes to win? One of life's great mysteries...

[ Parent ]

Why did the 10p compensation package fail to resonate with voters?  Why are the police so angry now?  

Perhaps it lacked credibility?  We say one-day that there's no money for what the people want, and then the next day find money for things the Government wants.

Is Trident to be cancelled?  ID cards?  Battleships?  PFI?  Northern Rock?

[ Parent ]

Yeah....or, as most of us promoting tax rises have been suggesting, raise taxes on the uber-rich. If we clamped down on all tax evasion, non-doms, private equity etc. we could treble funding for every kid going to primary school. I likewise think Brown has been reckless with some of his spending, gold, pensions etc. I support a balanced budget, as it's good economics.

[ Parent ]

Why do you people persist in ignoring facts? We've already established that we won more votes in 1992 than in 01 or  05, and that we only won 1 million more votes in 05 than 83 - so the idea that New Labour managed to build an unprecedentedly large coalition is clearly nonsense. Of course we want better public services - why does that mean we can't also pursue our goals of redistribution and tackling poverty? Why would that alienate middle class voters? And why did it not do so in 1992 and 1994? The only innovation of New Labour was to exploit the quirks of our electoral system - we could've changed that straight away and there'd simply be no need. AV would completely remove the disproportionate weight of floating voters and those in key seats. Frankly, unless we move to the left there's little point having a Labour govt, as New Labour has completely run out of ideas and is only interested in restructuring and rebranding now.

[ Parent ]

"Tony Blair was successful in getting rid of the notion that a Labour Government would tax and spend as he knew that the country would never accept such policies"

But the party did tax and spend!


"Tony Blair was uncompromising in his convictions and whilst he may have been disliked by some groups, he was nevertheless respected."

I agree with this. I never liked Blair just like I never liked Thatcher. But both of them were leaders even if you didn't like the direction of the journey. With Gordon I'm not sure that there even is a journey....


"I do not know what Gordon Brown stands for. I want to have an optimistic leader and one who sets out a clear vision"

I think it is becoming increasingly clear that Gordon is not a leader. The additional problem, which people here have alluded to is 'if not Gordon, then who?'. The 'candidates' are all scared of being the leader at the next election and probably equally scared of losing their seats if they are in marginals. Scared people seldom act rationally.

Perversely enough, if a cabinet member is in a moderately marginal seat then it might be worth attempting to become PM. Being Prime Minister can secure extra votes with the electorate in your own constituency. It is a gamble, but if near certain defeat is staring you in the face then it might be worth a flutter.....

[ Parent ]

"He maintained the coalition of support which we have sadly lost in the past few months."

What?!!!  Did you sleep through 2006?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4969812.stm

 

[ Parent ]

Very true. All previous Labour governments have accepted the broad church, and recognised that there is more than one acceptable strand of opinion in the party - this one has derided its opponents as deluded fantasists. That suggests not just intellectual cowardice, but an anti-democratic nature which is just not acceptable any more.

[ Parent ]

Well said. I'd like to know how Tom Harris reconciles his love for New Labour with the fact that they just ignore party conference...official Labour Party policy.

[ Parent ]

"The big problem I have with the whole "we can't move to the left" language is that it implies that the only direction of travel is to the right." That it, in a nutshell really. There's masses of political ground between (New) Labour as it is now and the hard-left, early '80s political ghetto. We can easily afford to be more social-democratic. Let's get Labour more in line with our European cousins in the PES.

[ Parent ]

It doesn't actually have to be 'either/or'.  Doing some really worthwhile stuff in the next two years is also - by happy coincidence - the best strategy for being re-elected.

[ Parent ]

I don't quite understand. Surely if 49.5% voted Tory then it would be a Tory seat...unless there were only 2 candidates which never happens. Sounds like a safe Tory seat to me.

[ Parent ]

These 2 responses precisely illustrate my point. I entirely agree with drdunc

[ Parent ]

Your choice of crime reduction is an interesting one. Crime has fallen in recent years. People's perception is perhaps that it is increasing. Certainly some crime with a high media profile - violence in teenagers for example - has increased. But, in general crime has fallen, so you could say that Labour has delivered on this.
 

[ Parent ]

[ Parent ]

Rather than just assume that someone is lying, why not look at how the figures are calculated. And draw your conclusions by asessing whether the method of calculation is sound.

The different inflation rates use different baskets of goods for example, CPI (I believe) excludes property.

[ Parent ]