Yesterday saw the sending out ballot papers to all Labour MPs, MEPs, Party Members and affiliated Society Members. Who will it be as Labour’s next leader, Abbott, Balls, Burnham, Miliband the Elder or Miliband the Younger? This blog is not here to suggest who you should vote for *cough* Ed Miliband *cough*, but rather to think long and hard, as we are now the sole progressive party with any chance of power in Britain (the Lib Dems are now a bigger sell out than “New” Labour with the coalition agreement and the Tories….well, just ask the IFS) and your vote will count to shaping the future of true British progressiveness (if that’s even a word).
Max
Don’t make the mistake of the Tories after 1997. Concentrating on your core vote, slipping towards on extreme and ignoring the middle section of society. Think of why Cameron beat us. He beat us because he does not sound like a Tory. He sounds like a man of the center hence a lot of ultra-Tories, have a massive problem with him, despite his success.
It is not my job, of course to tell you who NOT to vote for *cough* Diane Abbott *cough*. Just giving my two cents.
If I was a Labour supporter (heaven forbid lol) I would genuinely vote for David Miliband. All the other candidates represent a dangerous drift to the left and Sean is right concentrating on your “core” labour vote will lose you many an election.
But I think you’ll find Sean that this “center” you speak of was always the Tories to reclaim. WE lost when we vacated OUR center ground and moved further to the right to distance ourselves from Blair who was moving Labour on to Tory territory. We all operate within the paradigms and the “center”(right) ground that Thatcher created. Blair stated that in black and white in his memoirs if you’d care to give it a read
Incidently I think a victory for anyone other than Milibland the Elder would be a disaster for Labour and would really delight the Coalition
MiliE can restore our policies to where our hearts are – on the left and proud. Our party doesn’t need to spend another election campaign apologising for not having done everything we could to help society’s vulnerable. Bring on the ‘dangerous drift to the left’!
“All the other candidates represent a dangerous drift to the left” Fair enough Dianne Abbot, but since 1997 Labour has lost 5 million voters, only a million of which to the Tories, so most have gone to the Lib Dems who before the election could be seen as the more radical left party so a bit of a move to the left from the other candidates could do little harm, more help really.
Dan,
Don’t patronise me again.
lol!!!! I didn’t realise I was. Although im inclined to ask the question… “Or what…”
Were I patronising, I would say that ‘I think you will find it is “Or what?”‘
Read what you said again and tell me there is not a trace of condescension in it:
“But I think you’ll find Sean that this “center” you speak of was always the Tories to reclaim. WE lost when we vacated OUR center ground and moved further to the right to distance ourselves from Blair who was moving Labour on to Tory territory. We all operate within the paradigms and the “center”(right) ground that Thatcher created. Blair stated that in black and white in his memoirs if you’d care to give it a read
And it was a request, not a threat.
Well I apologise if you felt patronised. That wasn’t my intention I was attempting to reason with you that the center that you were speaking of was actually traditional Tory ground. Incidently I agreed with you that, were I a labour voter, I would be saying exactly what you said; drifting to the left would be as damaging to labour as drifting to the right in the wake of the 1997 defeat was for the Tories. Elections are won on the middle ground. Thatcher began it as arguably she was the first leader to occupy the middle ground, Blair recognised that and replicated it, the Tories abandoned it, Cameron has reclaimed it, now Labour can either fight us for it or drift to the left and be in opposition for a considerable period. The truth is there are those in the labour party that NEVER accepted the New Labour project. They put up with it. Now after 3 elections it has been defeated they are jumping with joy and delighting in citing the ‘loss of core labour values’ as the reason for that defeat. The ‘core labour values’ they speak of are no doubt the same values that allowed them to be defeated and out of government for a yet to be matched 18 years. The sensible wing of labour needs to fight the lefties in the party off and represent mainstream Britain which is the center right. Blair was absolutely right and even as a devout Tory were he to stand as a candidate against Cameron in the next election I would be sorely tempted to vote for him. Labour needs to replicate Blair and not continue the drift to the left.
I don’t agree it has always een traditional Tory ground, I think there are numerous examples where the Torie’s have been out of touch and it was Laour that more represented more mainstream feeling (I would pick, as prime example, the 1960s government of Wilson). But I will concede that in the 80s the Tories appeared more to the center, though I would argue that was as much to do with a domination of Labour by the uber-left, as it was to do with Thatcher being near the centre. I think in the case of Thatcher and Blair, for all their undoubted talents, they were helped by the opposition they faced retreating towards the extreme edges of their part of the spectrum.
I also think, while Blair was certainly centrist and favoured the free market, was not a conservative, and there are numerous examples from his policies and his book that I would point at to prove it.
“I think in the case of Thatcher and Blair, for all their undoubted talents, they were helped by the opposition they faced retreating towards the extreme edges of their part of the spectrum.” Undoubtedly. The best leaders often have weak and or ineffectual oppositions. Western free market capitalism triumphed yes because it had strong and resolute champions in Thatcher and Reagan BUT primarily it was because Soviet Communism collapsed under its own weight and contradiction.
As for Blair I wholeheartedly disagree. He is a conservative. His father was a Conservative and the apple rarely falls far from the tree. His policies were largely neo-liberal/conservative. Of course there are some policies he enacted that are more “labour” but that was due to pressure from his party not personal conviction. Furthermore have a read of Campbells memoirs where Blair blatantly states “What gives me real edge is that I’m not as Labour as you lot” yeah… you’re a conservative Blair lol.
As a politician I really admire the man, in the same way he states in his book he admires Thatcher. Which reminds me! what do you think about this;
’In what caused much jarring and tutting in the party I even decided to own up to supporting the changes Thatcher made. I knew the credibility of the whole New Labour project rested on accepting that much of what she wanted to do in the 1980s was inevitable… The basic fact was Britain NEEDED the industrial and economic reforms of the Thatcher period’
That says it all lol.
You may be surprised to hear that I am not an avid believer in the whole “Thatcher is the devil” myth of the Labour movement. At the same time I do not believe that she was this ‘Messiah’ as is ortrayed by the majority of Conservatives. I think her legacy is, like most politicians, genuinely very mixed. Many of her economic reforms were necessary and should be regarded as such. I do, however, think that many of the claims regarding the efficiency of her government are false. Her reforms, whilst maybe ridding Britain of inefficient industries such as mining etc, often left nothing in their place, which has led to many of the places which formerly accomodated these industries becoming regions of high unemployment, crime and broken communities, which arguably cost society more in policing, benefits and social sohesion than the inefficiencies that her policies were meant to be rid of.
And whilst her support for the services industry did bring many benefits in the long run, ultimately her premiership witnessed her fail in her prime objective; that of keeping inflation down, whilst unemployment and interest rates also remained harmfully high. Many of her policies, as much as they were ‘needed’, brought consequences which were not altogether beneficial to society and Labpur had to fix them (and in many cases failed to).
So, like I said, not the devil incarnate. But not this amazing reformer that she is portrayed, but a woman, like Blair, with mixed legacy.
And of course the apple can fall far from the tree.
Although, of course, Blair is not a woman as my last sentence may have inferred?!
Sean you are clearly a member of what I would call ‘the sensible wing’ of the Labour Party. I agree with most of what you’ve said because as much adms I believe Margaret Thatcher was a visionary and revolutionary leader who has yet to be matched I’m not blind to her faults and the negative aspects of her legacy. As they say; noones perfect.
I will take that as a compliment Dan. I am proud to be a member of the Labour party, but there are some in my party who, I believe, get it wrong on many issues. You probably have met similar people in your party. As I said, on Thatcher, my belief is that her reforms were not necessarily in themselves wrong. It was the ruthless nature of them that was because sometimes, as you have argued with the issue of the monarchy, even if something is not perfect (as the mining industry clearly wasn’t) unless there is a good alternative, be wary of getting rid of what is there. I feel with too much of her legacy, she reformed for the sake of ideology without much thought to the consequences.
I also think, on Blair and Thatcher, there were proposals, the so called ‘In Place of Strife’ white paper, brought about under Wilson which would have completely revolutionised the Trade Union movement. These proposals fell through but they were formed under a Labour government. Had they been put through, one could very reasonably argue that we would not really have needed Thatcher. Hence my earlier contention that the centre is not necessarily naturally the ground for Tories only. The Wilson government of the 60s, in my view, was one of the most important we have had in the post-war period, and its legacy oft under-appreciated. Hence I tend to see Blair as a latter day resurrection of that branch of the Labour movement.