[Closed] [s]New[/s] Labour

Thread title fail 😛

What's the new brand going to be?
[i]I can't believe it's not Labour[/i]?

Well to be fair, there aren't too many other things from last century still being advertised as "new".

Thread title fail

I knew the tags would fail DD.

Fail pointing out FAIL! 🙂

U-turn FAIL. 😛

Oo yes what would the rebranding be?

Labour - We're not [s]quite[/s] Conservative

The lad[s]y[/s] is not for turning!

how about Big Labour
to go with daves big society

anyone else think daves speech about big society being his mission is all getting a bit tony blair messianic

and i cant see nu labour changing while balls is in the ascendance

"Labour-in-vain"?

[i]Labour of Love
Labour Pains
Anything but Tory Bastards[/i]

anyone else think daves speech about big society being his mission is all getting a bit tony blair messianic

Except even he doesn't believe the guff that's coming out of his mouth.

I'm going for Cheap Labour, that's got to be a winner in "the current economic climate".

"We might have screwed up the economy, but we're not as evil as that lot" Labour

I like the suggestion in the NS comments - Hard Labour.

Labour; we aren't actually labour at all, we just pretend to be rather unconvincingly. In fact we are psuedo tories.

monkeychild - Member

Labour; we aren't actually labour at all, we just pretend to be rather unconvincingly. In fact we are psuedo tories.

blue labour then?

Forget all that boring guff;

ALL NEW TOTAL WIPEOUT FTW!

[img] [/img]

Labour Saving Device, innit.

loves labour lost?
premature labour?

Labour's not working

Old Labia

snooorrrffff

[img] [/img]

Do we really believe they can come up with what people want?

I dont think you ever did believe this did you?

I think the rebranding was succesfull in that Blair certainly destroyed any notion it was socialist and that its roots were working class.

Time will tell what they can come up with but I think their master plan will be to sit back and watch as this lot fail Big Society for example looks like a Millenium Dome vanity project for example
Perhaps everything will be great and teh private sector has fueeled employment and growth and we all help out but I remain to be convinced. It is just poosible I am wrong though. As always the economy and percieved success will be a mor elikely indicator of who will win

Itis unlikely that Labour will do a manifesto that is so bad it will make then umelectable. the Milliband leader is rather weak though

Anything remotely looney-leftie will make labour unelectable.

The only reason they got votes in '97- is because it's re-brand attracted enough of the centre right who didnt want to be associated with the conservative party. It didnt change these voters politics on the way though really did it?

There just isnt a sufficient body of genuine left wing voters in the country to make a left-wing manifesto electable IMO.

The only reason they got votes in '97- is because it's re-brand attracted enough of the centre right who didnt want to be associated with the conservative party

Didn't GrizzlyGus mention on here that he was a one-man poster machine in that-there London, making loads of NuLab posters for the '97 election ?

GG, doing his bit for NewLabour 😆

I dont recall, and I would never want to cast nastursiams on GG's political affiliations 🙂

Stoner - yes you are absolutley correct in what you say re centre voters and getting their vote. I think the vast majority of folk - say 80% of those who actually vore will always vote the way they do - or certainly not switch from left to right parties or vice versa.
The floating voters who will/have voted for either party are the ones who ultimately decide elections and will be courted by all parties. Ther eis nothing the Tories could do to make me vote for them and I doubt here is anything labour could do to make Flash vote for them for example.

I agree the far left wont get elected but neither will the far [non racist] right - say UKIP of which a fair few tory voters will agree with most of what they say for example

I think UKIP is more "electable" than the British Communist Party.

I dont think UKIP are inherently racist. A little jingoistic and probably over-nationalistic perhaps (and you could probably say the same about the SNP) but I think it's a bit disingenuous to lump them in with the fascists and the BNP. (BTW I'm a europhile, not a natural UKIP supporter)

Its one reason why I think AV will be a good thing - rather than creating stalemate, I think it will give the opportunity for minority parties to influence policy far beyond their democratic mandate by wielding their contribution to government majority in even more fractured coalition administrations. Our two party, FPTP system creates a very boggy, un-satisfying grey splurge around the centre right. No conviction to it!

I suspect that UKIP would get more votes under than a communist one.
I don’t think UKIP are racist [neither will the far [non racist] right - say UKIP – was my phrase] but yes nationalistic.
Re EU personally I don’t care geographically where the govt is when they ignore me. Overall I am ambivalent part of me thinks brotherhood of man and universal representation. part think bureaucratic unrepresentative behemoth

Don’t think AV will change the system at all. I don’t even think it is technically proportional is it not just a representational system?
I want to vote say UKIP will they win in my area NO so still no point voting for them but now I get mor ethan one choice if I want why can't I just have the choice i want rather than the least offensive one left.
I much prefer PR threshold + % = seats but it does erode the constituency link and gives way too much power to the central bureaucracy of each party.
I think AV has been chosen to actually ensure that small parties don’t get any additional power/very few if any additional seats unlike almost every other PR system. I am pro PR and rather undecided as I don’t like this system at all. If it wins it will stay [ my lifetime as we don’t do radical change here] if it looses opponents will say we have had our vote.

Didn't GrizzlyGus mention on here that he was a one-man poster machine in that-there London, making loads of NuLab posters for the '97 election ?

GG, doing his bit for NewLabour

No, I stopped supporting the Labour Party in 1995 [i]precisely[/i] because of New Labour. I have never voted or done any election work of any description for Labour since then.

In fact in 1997 I was deeply concerned with New Labour winning the election, arguing as I did, that a New Labour government would not represent any significant improvement over a Tory one.

As it happens I actually went further, and said that New Labour winning the general election would be seriously detrimental to British politics, as it would result in there being no effective left-wing opposition in Parliament - apart from a handful of Liberal Democrat and Plaid Cymru MPs.

I accused many on the left who despite all the evidence concerning how New Labour would behave once in office, but nevertheless still supported Labour in '97, of being in denial. I summed it up at the time as wishful thinking on their part that Tony Blair was some sort of [i]"closet socialist"[/i].

Abandoning Labour on '95 was no easy decision on my part, and not least because not only did I for many years invest a lot of time and effort in party election work (everything from knocking on doors/leafleting to carpentry work in party offices) but I considered the two Labour MPs elected in Croydon in '97 as personal friends. In later years I was forced to publicly denounce them - on one occasion, in the lead up to the Iraq war, with one sitting next to me.

In the '97 general election I canvassed for the Liberal Democrats which I continued to support until Nick Clegg became leader in 2007. Like Blair before him, I didn't need to wait until Clegg achieved power before figuring out what sort of politician he was. Although I have to admit that in both cases I did not foresee the total extent of their lies and treachery.

Who I support in local and national elections is solely dependant on what I consider serves the best interests of the ordinary British working people. It often bears little semblance to my own personal political commitment. As an anti-Trot/anti-ultra leftist, I strive for immediate gains for the working-classes. Not simply for an offer of a promised Utopia.

And right here and now, what would serve the best interests of ordinary British people, would be a social-democratic alternative to the 30 years of creeping neo-liberal market fundamentalism. I would if necessary, even support a One Nation Tory with that aim. I am however neither a social-democrat nor a Tory.

The [i]"one-man poster machine in that-there London"[/i] refers to a pre '95 occasion when for London-wide local elections, as part of an election team, I cut to size the timber and board for the majority of the 'Vote Labour' garden stake posters - well certainly for South London anyway.

Got yer computer sorted then Ernie?

Ernie nicely put but as someone who has taken a left stance for a long time I'd like to hear your thoughts on the current shadow cabinet and their leader.

Yup, all sorted.

craig - the jury's still out imo. At the moment I'm not overly optimistic, although Labour appear to be maybe stumbling in vaguely the right direction.

Part of the problem is that Tony Blair systematically destroyed all democracy within the Labour Party, or [i]"changed the structures"[/i] as he preferred to call it. For the Labour Party to renew itself, and once again become the mass party which represents ordinary working people, it must have the highest level of involvement and democratic debate.

At the moment all power is concentrated in the hands of whoever is leader, that needs to change. I see little sign of any commitment in that respect from Ed Miliband, but then that's hardly surprising - and not least because Labour Party leaderships have historically only embraced progressive policies and tactics when under pressure, often intense pressure. The unions at least, are weak and lacking in strong radical motivation. And a challenge from the constituency parties is not particularly on the cards as the party has over the years since '97, lost its most committed and best members.

The more fundamental question, ernie, is how left wing a party is actually electable nowadays? I suspect the answer to that might be more to the left than was the case in '97, because rightly or wrongly the current lot are going to get blamed for all the current mess, hence making Ed's job a lot easier than it might otherwise have been given the state of Labour. But will it be left enough for you? I suspect that the sort of left-wing party you wanted back in '97 would have struggled for electoral success even against Major, and would likely have only lasted one term.

Apologies Ernie for tainting you with the NuLab slur 😉 I see you're a better man than that.

It seems to me that we've come full circle - and nothing has really changed. Almost all traditional voters still vote for one of the big two with a minority still plugging away for whatever their particular bugbear is.

For me the biggest revelation of new labour is new name same old shit. AV may or may not make things better, a serious and far reaching overhaul of the system is certainly required and perhaps it's the first step.

Iggle piggle's big society is a nice idea but fundementally flawed in it's execution. Change cannot come from the centre - it's you and me doing things for ourselves whether government facilitates it or not that makes the difference.

What about Labour'd?

Change cannot come from the centre - it's you and me doing things for ourselves whether government facilitates it or not that makes the difference.

The more fundamental question, ernie, is how left wing a party is actually electable nowadays? I suspect the answer to that might be more to the left than was the case in '97

Ah, the old [i]"Blair made Labour electable"[/i] contention. Well despite that well-worn line by the right-wing media's myth makers, Labour was perfectly electable before Blair.

There is not a shred of evidence that Labour would not have won in '97 had it not been for Blair. Indeed there is plenty of evidence that John Smith would have comfortably won the general election.

The right-wing are very fond of trotting out the "Labour was unelectable" line whenever Labour lost an election - a term which incidentally they never use to describe the Tories when they lose an election.

The only way Labour could have been "unelectable" would have been of they had not stood any candidates in an election. As long as they stood candidates they were perfectly electable - and millions [i]did[/i] elect Labour candidates.

But I hear you say, they were "unelectable" in the "moral" sense........the [i]Tory[/i] moral sense of course. Well even that argument is undermined by the fact that in the 1992 general election, many years before Blair, that [i]comment provider[/i] to the captains of industry, the Financial Times, backed Labour over the Tories.

In fact in the 2005 general election Tony Blair secured over a million votes [u]less[/u] than Labour achieved in 1992. And of course '92 was in that period in which Labour is alleged to have been "unelectable".

Even in the 2001 general election, Labour under Blair, received almost a million less votes than it had in 1992.

The only time Labour under Blair did well in terms of total votes, was in '97 when he was an unknown quantity and no one quite knew what to expect. Labour started haemorrhaging votes (and members) as soon as Blair took office. What saved Blair's political skin was the fact that the Tories remained deeply unpopular, and "other parties" saw their support grow.

On the question of the "Big Society", it is indeed a classic New Labour type tactic. It has been criticised for being vague and hard to fully and precisely understand. But that is undoubtedly the whole purpose - no one should fully understand what it stands for.

Well, no one apart from Cameron, Osborne, etc. of course. When it suits, certain things will be deemed as part of the Big Society vision. When it doesn't suit, they will be deemed as not being part of the Big Society vision.

The whole [i]New Labour[/i] extravaganza thingy, was exactly the same. When Blair first arrived at Number 10 he informed the waiting press, "We were elected as New Labour, and we will govern as New Labour". No one had a clue what that actually meant. He knew though. It meant that New Labour would be whatever [i]he[/i] said it would be.

To be fair though, Blair wasn't the first to try that strategy. John Major had done it earlier with his "Back to Basics" campaign. Again the plan was to be deliberately vague as to what it [i]actually[/i] meant.

Unfortunately for Major, the press and the public took it upon themselves to decide what Back to Basics meant. Which was, that it referred to moral probity. Which would have been OK for Major if the public had only focused on the much Daily Mail vaunted "single mothers" issue. But unlucky for him they concentrated on Tory Party sleaze - and it eventual sunk him.

Still, at least the public never discovered that whilst John Major passionately preaching family values, he was doing the dirty on Norma and was for many years, shagging Edwina Currie. So I guess he didn't come out of it too badly.

Sod all that boring guff; what was up with yer computer then? Did you buy a new one?

No, the nice man in the shop fixed it for me. No idea what was wrong with it (apart from the graphics card issue)

How's your three-legged sideboard getting on ?

I haven't the energy to debate your post, but just a quick one to say I enjoyed reading it and thanks for putting the effort into typing it, I always value your hefty ones 🙂 . Night night GG.

I haven't got a three-legged sideboard. 😕

I'm making a little bedside cabinet atm. It's quite cute actually.

Ear, you could help me out with this, as it goes.

http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/i-want-a-drill/page/2#post-2290418

haven't the energy to debate your post.........thanks for putting the effort

No energy or effort required on my part........I simply rely on my boundless supply of class conscious revolutionary zeal 8)

I haven't got a three-legged sideboard.

You said that you were restoring a sideboard which had a leg missing - make your mind up 😕

Get this :

http://www.diy.com/diy/jsp/bq/nav.jsp?action=detail&fh_secondid=11127512&fh_view_size=10&fh_location=%2f%2fcatalog01%2fen_GB&fh_search=hitachi+18v+cordless&fh_eds=%C3%9F&fh_refview=search&isSearch=true

I think we might have found a source of perpetual energy! 🙂

You said that you were restoring a sideboard which had a leg missing

No I never. Don't let your senility make up stuff what ain't real...

I don't need a drill. I've got a drill. It's a decent Skil one. What I need is a thing like this, to clamp it into, so it's like a bench drill:

[img] [/img]

No I never. Don't let your senility make up stuff what ain't real...

It's [u]you[/u] who's going ****ing senile mate :

Elfinsafety - Member

Projects for the New Year will include a sofa which converts to a double bed for occasional guests but one what looks nice, not like a sofa bed; a dining table; [u]and rebuilding a 1970s sideboard[/u]. The coffee table will be a little indulgence piece; not sure what it'll look like yet, but I want to produce a range of designs that will hopefully get made and sold. I have a spossible conduit through which to shift stuff.

Wanted to do some stuff for years really. Can't beat a nice bit of furniture you've made yerself.

Posted 2 months ago

And :

Elfinsafety - Member

it's only a basic inexpensive thing, but I've always loved it's design. It's battered and tatty now, 35+ years on, so I thought I'd rebuild the thing. I think [u]only the cupboard and drawer handles and front leg piece will remain[/u]. Would look good with some very light blonde wood, with dark wood accents

Posted 2 months ago

OK, so I got it wrong......it's not three-legged, it's only got one leg.

So I'll start again..........How's your [b]one-legged[/b] sideboard getting on ?

BTW that drill attachment is made by "Wolfcraft" ......... go to a shop and buy one 💡

Why do you insist on upsetting me? 😥

It's got FOUR legs.

Where I can buy thing like that above in picture?

Please try to be nice and helpful.

Where I can buy thing like that above in picture?

In a ****ing tool shop. Where were you going to try ?

http://www.wolfcraft.de/jcatalog_generated/en/products/product_groups/857_product.html

There is not a shred of evidence that Labour would not have won in '97 had it not been for Blair. Indeed there is plenty of evidence that John Smith would have comfortably won the general election

of course '92 was in that period in which Labour is alleged to have been "unelectable".

I never suggested Labour wouldn't have won in '97 without Blair

And I never accused you of saying it......I referred to the right-wing media myth-makers.

LibDems squeezing both

Yeah, I said : [i]What saved Blair's political skin was the fact that the Tories remained deeply unpopular, and "[b]other parties[/b]" saw their support grow.[/i]

The point was that Labour was perfectly electable before Blair - and millions [i]did[/i] elect Labour MPs. The big advantage for Blair was, as you quite rightly pointed out, that he had percentages on his side - but that's hardly a personal "credit" to him. After 1997, when people had a better idea of what he stood for, he received less total votes than Old Labour had. Which is not what the myth-makers would have you believe.