We can win - but we have to be brave

lulu Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 09:40:47 PM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

We haven't lost - yet - but we need to face up to facts if we are going to win.



Two parties have had a bad three months. David Cameron's essential arrogance and misjudgement - and his very right wing programme - have become obvious to anyone who cares to look.

But nobody is looking, because of our leader.

So long as Gordon Brown leads us we won't be listened to. So can we please take our heads out of the sand and do what needs to be done?

And let's follow Gordon's resignation with a contested election and go from there.



tags: (all tags)

Display: Sort:
We can win - but we have to be brave | 22 comments (22 topical)

Re: We can win - but we have to be brave (#1)

by sickandtired on Fri Jul 25, 2008 at 10:35:17 PM GMT

Its not so much a change of leader Its a change of direction thats needed.


Re: We can win - but we have to be brave (#2)

by treborc on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 08:07:33 AM GMT

Labour has to come out and tell us what the hell it's doing. Three days before the election Labour comes out with a Welfare Green paper in an area which has high benefits sickness and disability and then worries why it lost.

People are worried about welfare reforms social housing and even Dentist a report this week say more and more NHS dentist are leaving, I've not seen a dentist for what eleven years now.

But in the end if Labour are trying to compete with the Tories the Tories will win, why have a copy when you can have the real thing.


Re: We can win - but we have to be brave (#3)

by krindlekrax on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 09:56:05 AM GMT

"Its not so much a change of leader Its a change of direction thats needed."

We evidently cannot have the change of direction without a new leader. Our leader has failed us and we are deceiving ourselves if we don't rid ourselves of him. Brownout!


Re: We can win - but we have to be brave (#4)

by Floating voter on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 11:41:31 AM GMT

"We evidently cannot have the change of direction without a new leader. Our leader has failed us and we are deceiving ourselves if we don't rid ourselves of him. Brownout!"

You do realise that another change of leader will almost certainly force a general election? You simply cannot have another "unelected by the voters" leader without damaging the party's electoral standing in the country even further.

The internal election procedure allows for even more scheming and backbiting in public and if Brown is forced out, don't think he won't make trouble. He spent 10 years "meddling" in the background and he hasn't forgotten how to do it.


[ Parent ]

Re: We can win - but we have to be brave (#5)

by lulu on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 02:22:44 PM GMT

I'd be happy to face the country within six months of the new PM taking office. And my prediction ... we'll the greasy smile of Cameron's face. What has happened is that the country has fallen out of love with Labour not that it has fallen in love with the Tories.


[ Parent ]

Re: We can win - but we have to be brave (#8)

by ppbarrett on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 04:59:58 PM GMT

We really can't! One could justify Brown taking over from Tony because there was no huge policy revamp from the 2005 manifesto, and to an extent, Tony Blair's admission that he was leaving in his 3rd term meant that in 2005, Labour voters were "voting Blair, getting Brown". Brown's coronation was just about excusable to the electorate because it was expected.

The idea that we can somehow elect a completely new leader for the second time in a term and instigate a policy break from our 2005 manifesto is a complete bastardisation of the democratic process that we will be unlikely to get away with.

If a new leader were to succeed Brown in this Parliament, we would have no choice but to go to the polls straight away, there would be no chance to wait around for 6 months.


[ Parent ]

Re: We can win - but we have to be brave (#11)

by Free Radical on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 10:50:00 PM GMT

You might argue that morally there would be a case for an election but constitutionally there is no requirement whatsoever. In fact the party system is not greatly entrenched in the constitution. At the heart of our constitution there is the simple process that a constituency elects a member of parliament and parliament effectively picks the prime minister whom the monarch invites to form a government. The public do not vote for a prime minister at all and they don't even have to vote for a party.

We have no presidential system in the UK.


[ Parent ]

Re: We can win - but we have to be brave (#15)

by ppbarrett on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 02:03:52 AM GMT

I'm well aware of the lack of a presidential system in the UK, thanks, I was trying to point towards what pressures a new leader would face should anyone replace Gordon Brown - do you not agree that, whoever that may be, would face enormous pressure to hold an election straight away? There wouldn't be a constitutional requirement for us to hold an election, but unless we did we'd be treating the entire democratic system with contempt, something which could condemn us to a longer stretch in opposition far longer than we would otherwise have served.


[ Parent ]

Re: We can win - but we have to be brave (#17)

by Free Radical on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 10:59:15 AM GMT

Well, the media might try to play that game, and popular misapprehension about our constitution might also lead to such calls. But I don't agree with you at all in essence. We don't elect a prime minister. The manifesto has an important moral standing of course, but no constitutional standing - and in any case Labour MPs would still be morally bound to the manifesto. I don't agree at all that it would be treating the democratic system with contempt - no doubt the Tories would say that because in this case it would suit them - though they didn't call an election when Thatcher went.

Your contract, if you like, is between you and your MP - that's all. There is none whatsoever between the voter and the Prime Minister - except in the Prime Minister's own constituency. (The other contract if you like in a monarchy like ours is between the monarch and the subject, but that's another matter...).

We need to distinguish between moral and constitutional arguments. You can make of a moral argument what you wish - no doubt Tories and Tory media would, but there is no constitutional argument whatsoever (as the transitions from Thatcher to Major and Blair to Brown amply illustrate).

Were such an eventuality (by no means certain anyway) to arise, I have no doubt that the Tories would cynically and opportunistically call for a general election - as is their right to call for whatever they wish whenever they wish. They were not so enthusiastic when Brown replaced Blair of course because they feared they might lose. Nor did they do this when Major replaced Thatcher because they thought they would lose. So, let's have a bit of perspective here.


[ Parent ]

Re: We can win - but we have to be brave (#18)

by ppbarrett on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 11:57:19 AM GMT

Actually they did demand an election straight away, before the 'Brown Bounce' took hold. 

I take your points over the differences in a constitutional/moral argument for a general election, but I don't quite agree with your arguments over precedent.

 Thatcher won the 1987 election, and was replaced by Major in 1990.

 Blair won the 2005 election and was replaced by Brown in 2007.

 In both cases, you correctly point out that the public was, on the whole, ambivalent to those changes of office. However, in this case we're talking about installing a third leader in one parliamentary term - there's no historical precedence for that is there?

Moreover, in the cases of Blair and Thatcher, it was their personalities and their own personal policies which had led to their demise, their parties were on the whole, still popular, or at least respected by the electorate. In 2008, not only is Brown personally unpopular, but I think the party is also the subject of similar unpopularity - the electorate doesn't just want Brown to go, they want us to leave as well. There would be no honeymoon period, there would be no <insert name> bounce, or a big enough bounce to put us in a place where we would actually want a general election.

My argument is that changing leader, as you will recognise will lead to pressures to have a general election. However, different to 2007, the party is unpopular, not just the man. By ignoring the calls for a general election, we'd further compound our demise.


[ Parent ]

Re: We can win - but we have to be brave (#6)

by antibloodsports on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 03:28:47 PM GMT

"But nobody is looking, because of our leader."

 

that is utter tripe! Could it be that nobody is looking because:

A. the right wing media, including the BBC, don't analyse anything the Tories say or propose, preferring to run a constant commercial of 'Labour bad, Brown bad'

B Labour people on here spend the time crapping over their own leader when they should be fighting the Tories, not doing their job for them.

 


Re: We can win - but we have to be brave (#14)

by lulu on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 01:27:11 AM GMT

Yes, it's all down to the media. And if it's not the media it is Labour Home.

Remind me, what planet are you on?


[ Parent ]

Re: We can win - but we have to be brave (#19)

by jkitleft on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 12:05:55 PM GMT

(S)he has a slight point. The media does present Cameron as a cuddly liberal, whereas you and I both know that he is standing on a very much right-wing manifesto.


[ Parent ]

Re: We can win - but we have to be brave (#9)

by jkitleft on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 05:59:11 PM GMT

I think there probably are some protest votes about the economy. So why have we plummeted from 5-10 points behind when the economy was still threatning to go into recession a few months ago, to 20-25 points behind? Because the notion of Brown being a ditherer, trying to appease the Tories, and mainly the 10p tax issue, got the public angry.


Re: We can win - but we have to be brave (#10)

by stewrigh on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 07:54:03 PM GMT

You are joking right??
Labour is toast


Re: We can win - but we have to be brave (#12)

by Free Radical on Sat Jul 26, 2008 at 10:51:18 PM GMT

Toast is wholesome and good for people.


[ Parent ]

Re: We can win - but we have to be brave (#13)

by jkitleft on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 12:28:46 AM GMT

Good answer!


[ Parent ]

Re: We can win - but we have to be brave (#16)

by swatantra on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 10:04:41 AM GMT

'...would that be white bread or brown bread with your marmalade, Hamish?'


[ Parent ]

Re: We can win - but we have to be brave (#20)

by stewrigh on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 02:45:17 PM GMT

Toast isn't wholesome when it's been burnt to a crisp, just like the labour party.
No-one likes burnt toast and Glasgow proved no-one likes Labour any more.
The BNP will get more votes than Labour at the next election


[ Parent ]

Re: We can win - but we have to be brave (#21)

by otware on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 05:18:33 PM GMT

I somehow doubt that. But yes, I agree that Blair-Brown New Labour is burnt toast of the charcoaled carcinogenic variety. A change in leader must happen, and it must coincide with a change in direction.


[ Parent ]

Re: We can win - but we have to be brave (#22)

by jkitleft on Sun Jul 27, 2008 at 05:43:17 PM GMT

Oh please....


[ Parent ]

Re: We can win - but we have to be brave (#23)

by madasafish on Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 11:03:02 AM GMT

Leaving aside the fact that Gordon as Leader means bad news for the country but good news for the Conservatives, any sane non Scottish voter is likely to find Gordon Brown on TV is a turnoff.

Tractor statistics and stilted delivery and a real inability to communicate at a level where he seems to be a normal human being .. mean he just turns people off. plus he's a proven liar so no-one believes what he says.

And that's the issue. In 13 months of leadership the man has lost all his credibility... al by himself. No media help .. they supported him when appointed.


We can win - but we have to be brave | 22 comments (22 topical)