New Labours next leader?

It just got a lot more interesting. Now that Abbott has got the required 33 nominations it spices up the contest no end. All the others looks more or less the same suits but with different heads on, Abbott on the other hand is like breath of fresh air. Now I admit, I like Diane. Of course I don't really know her but I like her forthrightness on This Week with El Portillo and Brillo.

I don't agree with virtually anything she stands for but at least she has convictions, albeit flexible ones when it comes to her immediate family but convictions nevertheless.

Now if I had the chance to finally nail the liebour party once and for all I would root for Balls! He's such a charming bloke. However on this one I'm plumping for Diane.

Diane to be the next Great Leader.

Waddyafink? :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Abbott on the other hand is like breath of fresh air. Now I admit, I like Diane. Of course I don't really know her but I like her forthrightness on This Week with El Portillo and Brillo.

---

That's exactly what I thought when I first heard she was running. She seems like a nice person, not such a sleazy scumbag like a lot of the rest look like.

interesting that balls has labelled himself as euro-sceptic and less pro-immigration.

Maybe Balls is trying to outflank the Coalition from the Right. God, what a disaster that would be.

you mean it would be a disaster for labour to elect a leader who reflected the view of the majority of its electorate, i.e. that immigration should be limited, and europe should be held at arms length.

i can see that labour would really suffer for adopting that position as policy!

She used to be my MP years ago. I don't like her. I think she is New Labour to the core.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

She used to be my MP years ago. I don't like her. I think she is New Labour to the core.

---

Did you vote for her? :inquisitive:

The only people I see wanting Abbott are Tories and other people who are hostile to the Labour party - she does not have a strong following inside the party, at least thats what I see.

Balls is doing what every candidate is doing, trying to talk to the 'values' of the skilled working class who deserted Labour at the last election, the theory goes if you get them back, we win. It isn't that easy and it is also bad form to think talking tough on immigration is the only thing the semi skilled working class go for.

I think I will probably vote for Ed Miliband when my ballot comes - I wasn't sure at first if he was good enough at presenting a vision and policy before camera and was leaning in his brothers direction - but the more I see of him the more I like him. His policies are both thought through and good and I think we will be able to win the next election with him. We shall see, the unions are the next big movers of opinion, I have a feeling a lot of them might plump for Balls, which might make it interesting - his performance on the daily politics today was very good I thought, even if I can't really stand the guy.

interesting JAG, cheers.

Well, if Harriet Harmen had gone in that would have been the Party finished for about another decade. To be honest, the others all look the same, being varying mixes of Blair and Brown. At least Diane Abbott is somewhat individual, even if she did only get on to the ballot because Harmen bullied people.

I'm all for Abbott. That'd probably help Labour to implode.

Convictions? Those born of a poor grasp of issues - oh, and of course not for her or her family. Merely good enough for others.

Second place would be Balls: "myopic fanatic? Think with your Balls"

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Did you vote for her? :inquisitive:

---

No I didn't. I don't generally vote as a rule.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JAG

...the skilled working class who deserted Labour at the last election

---

So that is what happened, in a nutshell?

I love this quote "he echoed David Miliband’s sentiment that the new Labour leader had to construct 'a wider movement', thus opening the door to the left and trade unions", they outright admitted that Labour are not left-wing. :laugh4:

Source: http://www.businesswings.co.uk/artic...te-the-verdict

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Idaho

No I didn't. I don't generally vote as a rule.

---

Bad boy. :no: Then you can't really complain then.

Keep Milliband out of the leadership position. There is something deeply unsettling about him. He will kill us all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

So that is what happened, in a nutshell?

---

Yes, pretty much. A lot of the big tent, coalition of support Blair got in 1997 and 2001 had already deserted Labour by 2005, but we won that election because on the whole women and the skilled working class - mechanics, plumbers etc etc - voted for Labour. The reason Thatcher got such large majorities back in the 80's was because the left were completely, hopelessly divided but also more importantly she successfully appealed to the aspirational, skilled working class - with buy your own council home etc etc... This is the group which, if it swings by 15-20% to the Tories is disasterous for Labour - and that is who we need to win back. I think in 1997 Labour won 60% of this groups vote but it was down to around 35% at the last election. Anyway, interesting times.

Abbot-Seen as a self righteous hypocrite from many within her party and plenty of the "chattering classes". Mainly relating to her views on education, I'm not sure of the specifics.

Balls- Comes across as very light weight in debates and is probably too attached to Brown. His recent attempt to rebuke the Iraq War, like many of his other fellow leadership contenders is both laughable and a flat out lie. Honestly please people, most of you were at the heart of it and sat round the Cabinet table when it was agreed. Or have we forgotten collective Cabinet responsibility? As far as train wrecks go, Balls would be just that. Mind you, it would be hilarious to see him in the leadership role due to his sheer detachment from reality. Him and his wife can also claim the title as the most arrogant couple in politics, bar none.

Andy Burnham- Looks like a small child and doesn't have the balls (no pun intended) to be a proper leader. Then again, a break from the authoritarian style leadership we have seen recently might be just what we need.

David Milliband- He's probably been planning this leadership campaign since about August last year and along with his brother, has the support and leadership credentials required to win it.

Ed Milliband- Think David except a bit more personable. Doubt there that radically different ideology wise, both New Labour through and through. Although David's meant to be more "Blairite" and Ed more "Brownite". Also find it laughable we have a "Brownite" ideology. Suspect it involves tanking the economy as a core economic view.

My personal view is that David or Ed would be best suited for the job, probably Ed as opposed to David. They both sound exactly the same though so its a choice between Ketchup and Catsup. The rest aren't really serious contenders although Balls could be counted as one but unfortunately his inflated ego is so big, he probably wouldn't be able to fit through the portcullis if he became leader. Despite who wins, I probably wont be voting New Labour within the near future as non offer genuine policy changes. Nearly all seem committed to the neo-Stalinist spend spend spend approach of New Labour and I feel nearly all of them are detached from the public and don't known what the public want.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tibilicus

spite who wins, I probably wont be voting New Labour within the near future as non offer genuine policy changes. Nearly all seem committed to the neo-Stalinist spend spend spend approach of New Labour and I feel nearly all of them are detached from the public and don't known what the public want.

---

agreed, the big state ideology is dead (some of us got there a lot sooner than others), and it's about time labour caught up.

We should have a Libertarian Socialist party. Now that would be a good one, especially if it follows my idea of how it should look like. I think the success of my ideas would even convert Furunculus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

We should have a Libertarian Socialist party. Now that would be a good one, especially if it follows my idea of how it should look like. I think the success of my ideas would even convert Furunculus.

---

We already have a Libertarian party, and a Liberal party. However, a Libertarian Socialist party is an oxymoron.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

We already have a Libertarian party, and a Liberal party. However, a Libertarian Socialist party is an oxymoron.

---

Indeed. It's a bit like having a cuddly, caring serial killer. :laugh4:

I reckon that 'banana' Milliband will probably walk it. Diane is only the token really. Shame, at least she's entertaining.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

We should have a Libertarian Socialist party. Now that would be a good one, especially if it follows my idea of how it should look like. I think the success of my ideas would even convert Furunculus.

---

a fairly contradictory and hopeless ideology in my opinion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

Bad boy. :no: Then you can't really complain then.

---

Not this bollocks again.

You don't have to make bets and shout and jump around in the grandstand to be interested in horse racing.

You don't have to buy newspapers or subscribe to Sky in order to be interested/concerned about the quality of the media.

etc, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

We already have a Libertarian party, and a Liberal party. However, a Libertarian Socialist party is an oxymoron.

---

Of course it isn't. That kind of comment is made by those who really don't understand or cannot grasp the whole idea of ideology, especially the historical strands of the left. Maybe before making such ignorant statements people should try and educate themselves first. Makes certain people look a little foolish.

Quote:

---

agreed, the big state ideology is dead (some of us got there a lot sooner than others), and it's about time labour caught up.

---

Bill Clinton in the 90's was forced to say ' the era of big government is over', it is nothing new to think that government is all wrong and unhelpful, it is just amusing to see people think it is. It is quite easy to bash government and forget how much we need government. What is brilliant currently is seeing the Tories and those on the right use the failure of PRIVATE industry and the rescue of our whole way of life by GOVERNMENT, be used as an excuse to bash the public sector and government. It is quite astounding and also quite sad, without government we would be nowhere. Private industry always comes crawling back to the state for help when it fails.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JAG

Of course it isn't. That kind of comment is made by those who really don't understand or cannot grasp the whole idea of ideology, especially the historical strands of the left. Maybe before making such ignorant statements people should try and educate themselves first. Makes certain people look a little foolish.

---

I really don't see how you can reconcile the collectivist approach to the economy of socialism, with the individualistic approach of libertarianism. I think the problem is people conflate social and economic libertarianism. I'm sure more people who indentify as 'libertarian socialists' are libertarian on social issues, but they are quite clearly not libertarian when it comes to the economy. When you have a collectivist approach to the means of the production, that clearly places society as a whole above the individual, hence it is not libertarian.

I think the whole concept of 'libertarian socialism' simply stems from the fact that todays leftists want to appear 'progressive', despite the fact that their fundamental ideology is rooted in the class structures of the nineteenth century. Times have changed, they need to deal with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JAG

Bill Clinton in the 90's was forced to say ' the era of big government is over', it is nothing new to think that government is all wrong and unhelpful, it is just amusing to see people think it is. It is quite easy to bash government and forget how much we need government. What is brilliant currently is seeing the Tories and those on the right use the failure of PRIVATE industry and the rescue of our whole way of life by GOVERNMENT, be used as an excuse to bash the public sector and government. It is quite astounding and also quite sad, without government we would be nowhere. Private industry always comes crawling back to the state for help when it fails.

---

All that could just as easily be an argument against 'big government'. For the government to take the taxpayers money to bail out private businesses is hardly in the spirit of capitalism, and only encourages carlessness on the part of the business owners, knowing that no matter how much they mess up the government will step in and save them. In much the same way that people can sit all their lives without working knowing that the government will fund their lifestyles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JAG

What is brilliant currently is seeing the Tories and those on the right use the failure of PRIVATE industry and the rescue of our whole way of life by GOVERNMENT, be used as an excuse to bash the public sector and government. It is quite astounding and also quite sad

---

I feel like Bruce Willis in the Sixth Sense, or Jim Carrey in the Truman Show, or something. What seems perfectly obvious to me is not at all shared by other people, who seem to go about their daily business completely oblivious to all of this. This reversal of cause and effect. Not the banks, rating agencies, hedge funds or any of the like are reigned in by the voters, but their governments are. Rather than demand their tax money back, they issue an apology to the financial markets for having made such a mess of it all themselves, dismantle their states, and throw all of their tax money at the financial institutes.
It installs a completely regressive tax system, with a private sector that managed to privatise all profit, and socialise all risk. Sheer socialism, reversed: private enterprise protected by the state, and income redistributed from the poor to the rich by taxes.

Everywhere in European elections, the right is winning big, on a platform of austerity measures and doomsday scenarios of 'living beyond our means'. In effect, the welfare states are dismantled to use the tax funds to pay the world's financial institutions.

Every day I wake up, hoping that this day, in some large public place, suddenly all people will turn towards me and shout in unison 'just kidding! If you look up, there's the camera!'
Failing that, I hope I died and am living in some sort of limbo right now, punished for sins by having to witness this madness.

ain't it just swell! :sultan:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

I feel like Bruce Willis in the Sixth Sense, or Jim Carrey in the Truman Show, or something. What seems perfectly obvious to me is not at all shared by other people, who seem to go about their daily business completely oblivious to all of this. This reversal of cause and effect. Not the banks, rating agencies, hedge funds or any of the like are reigned in by the voters, but their governments are. Rather than demand their tax money back, they issue an apology to the financial markets for having made such a mess of it all themselves, dismantle their states, and throw all of their tax money at the financial institutes.
It installs a completely regressive tax system, with a private sector that managed to privatise all profit, and socialise all risk. Sheer socialism, reversed: private enterprise protected by the state, and income redistributed from the poor to the rich by taxes.

Everywhere in European elections, the right is winning big, on a platform of austerity measures and doomsday scenarios of 'living beyond our means'. In effect, the welfare states are dismantled to use the tax funds to pay the world's financial institutions.

Every day I wake up, hoping that this day, in some large public place, suddenly all people will turn towards me and shout in unison 'just kidding! If you look up, there's the camera!'
Failing that, I hope I died and am living in some sort of limbo right now, punished for sins by having to witness this madness.

---

Louis, Goverments took massive stakes in the banks. The net result was the exiting shareholders lost c. 90% of their money - it's over 80% owned by the government and dividends have been stopped. IMO the governments did exactly what they should do - they bought at the bottom of the market, propped up the banks and charged for services that the banks had to accept. It's one of the few things Labour has done well (compare to selling gold at a market low)

The government can soon sell their share for a profit. That's ignoring the cost of providing a safety net, and interest on lending.

You make it sound that the banks were given free money to go on as before.

The only ones that truly gained were the senior employees who made vast profits in the good times and merely great profits now.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

ain't it just swell! :sultan:

---

Well I'm fine with charity itself. But if I want to hand out my hard-earned money, I'd rather give the money myself as charity than being forced to do so through taxes used for social engineering.

All these bankers on the dole make them lazy. They need some good capitalist incentives to get them to work for their money. Such as risk instead of government safety nets.