Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Kinnock 1985


Alan Davies tonight says this speech in 1985 was the beginning of the modern Labour Party......


Hearing the speech for the first time myself (in excerpts) it seems this is when Neil Kinnock said it was not about Labour principles, it was about winning a general election. The beginning of the road to success for Labour. The beginning of Labour playing the game.


Kinnock divided the party with this speech - many walked out.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/13438-the-modern-labour-party/
Share on other sites

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Back to left wing opposition wilderness. Why are

> the Unions still such a big player in Labour

> Leader elections, when they have been dragging

> Labour down for decades.


maybe because the party has finally realised that people have had enough and are thoroughly sick of the past decade of 'new' Labour spin and might prefer to see a return to what the 'ordinary' people want from them?

Narnia Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I tend to agree with Katie1969. Is it not good to have a party that in some way is accountable to the people?


Since the working population of UK is approximately 36m, with the total population being nearly 62m and given that total union membership is only just over 6m - trade unions can scarcely be representative of "the people".


Additionally, trade union membership is skewed toward public sector workers, with almost 60% of public sector employees being in a union. In the private sector the % is nearer 5%. Thus trade unions are not only NOT representative of "the people" they aren't even a balanced representation of the workforce.

Mick, your opening salvo was about Neil Kinnock talking about making the party electable. As you don't actually proffer an opinion, it's for us to guess at what you're getting at, but for me, it came across that electability rather than principle was somehow to be sniffed at.


And yet, and yet: here we have an opposition leader who will go back to "left wing wilderness".


Perhaps I was wrong in my original inference, but what's a leader to do?


As long as we all value smarm over principle we'll have an unelectable opposition, and be governed by a bunch of elitist, self-interested c*nts. And you know what? We deserve no better.

Have any of the naysayers on here even been to a hustings?


Or listened to more than a 5 min soundbite on tv?


Or have you just swallowed a media depiction that bears little resemblence to the real Ed Miliband. Do some research before making ludicrous judgements like "unelectable" or "back to the wilderness". It does no one justice.

Ludicrous David?


The point that I'm making is that your typical cuntybollocks voter isn't going to watch more than a soundbite before making their decision. I think it's a sorry state of affairs that you need to be charismatic and photogenic to get voted into power but there we are.


I'm sure he has the wit and hopefully the advisors around him to groom him into what the British public want from a PM.

I suspect the Tories are cracking open the champagne bottles tonight over Ed Milliband becoming Labour leader. Instinctively the electorate will not vote for a party led by someone who sounds retarded and associated with the Unions. For me I doubt he will still be leader come the next general election.

I think it's ludicrous to make those statements on the day of his election as leader, 4.5 years before thenext general election.


Or to try and second guess the entire electorate.


Negative judgements now are just Murdoch/Associated Press inspired bullshit.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • @beansprout The Swedes seem to have a useful strategy with regard to offenders  which has reduced repeat offending.  I agree that prison time for minor offences is a complete waste of time. Even worse is that prisons are "colleges of crime" where inmates learn about how to be do crimes and worst of all, become exposed to drug taking. I wouldn't advocate having chain gangs as in the USA but some strategy for getting them into say manual work under supervision might be useful - especially if it came with a modest wag. This would be significantly cheaper than the £51,100 it costs per year for  keeping one in jail.
    • I agree there are other options, but apart from cutting off bits of the body, which is probably not going to happen here, at least hopefully not in my lifetime, I wouldn't call them"stricter"! Unfortunately ultimately it may depend on what is cost effective in terms of implementation.
    • This year it was Pfizer. Last year was Moderna and I was quite  ill after it for the first time. I think last year was the only time I have had Moderna, but the illness may have been nothing to do with what kind of jab it was, I don't know. I have no idea whether everyone gets the same one in any particular year, but I'm sure someone else on here will know! 
    • Thanks for posting this JMK we have had 3 children at Charter East so have been involved with the school from the very early days and have watched the impact of inconsistent, unsupportive and at worst unprofessional and biased management on them over the years. Individual teachers have at times been great and as JMK says it is the overall structure that creates a toxic and punitive atmosphere which directly impacts some families more than others and these are the kids overwhelmingly that have an SEN.  The experience of these families is night and day compared with the families with children that can cope in this system.  
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...