New Labours next leader?

[tibilicus]

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.

[Furunculus]

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.

[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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

[InsaneApache]

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.

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

[JAG]

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.

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.

[Rhyfelwyr]

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.

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.

[Louis VI the Fat]

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.

[Furunculus]

ain't it just swell!

[rory_20_uk]

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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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'm not talking about ideology, I'm talking about goernment. A Socialist government socialises responsibility, places social functions in the hands of the state and increases governmental responsibility. A Libertarian government individualises responsibility (even social responsibility), places social functions in the hands of the individual and reduces government responsibility.

So the two are incompatable.

HOWEVER, if you are talking about upholding certain "liberties" such as free speecj, freedom of religion, etc. that is a different issue. Such a political philosophy might be possible to construct, but it would likely try to preserve liberties by defining them and legislating for them; at which point they cease to be liberties and become state-granted privilages.

Or, to put it another way, don't call me ignorant, uneducated and foolish instead of responding to my point. Lack of engagement usually comes from reluctance to face one's opponent.

Oh, and I see Rhy, studying history and politics right now I believe, agrees with me.

[Beskar]

Oh, and I see Rhy, studying history and politics right now I believe, agrees with me.

He calls himself a "born again communist" which implies a communist convert, when he clearly isn't.

Also, he is incorrect in his post, Libertarian in practise is the minimised of authority, namely being government authority, which has opinions ranging from minisation or even abolition of the state. However, this is fundamentally flawed, as they leaves you being governed by Walmart, Microsoft and McDonalds, as they have the economical power and influence to control you. Libertarian Socialist on the otherhand has the aims to minimise all aspects of authority, if it is 'government', economics or social.

He also defined Libertarian wrong, it is "Libertarianism is a political theory that advocates the maximization of individual liberty in thought and action", in a Libertarian Socialist environment, you would have greater individual liberty in thought and action than under just a minimised state, as people would be almost equal economically, one can not use his economical might to exploit another person who remove others liberties.

What is also interesting that you (PVC) just commented that a Bill of Rights is the removal of liberties and "repackaged" as state-granted privilages. That is just simply nonsense, as they are actually "state-protected liberties" not "state-granted privilages". Your comment is just pure political rhetoric where you are trying to make a point where it doesn't actually exist.

[Beskar]

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

No it isn't.

a fairly contradictory and hopeless ideology in my opinion:

How so?

[Furunculus]

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