The Modern Labour Party

[Mick Mac]

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.

[Mick Mac]

[brum]

The end of ideology. The dawn of middle ground mediocrity.

[????]

...but that's what we want us brits..we don't do revolutions and we don't do shouty people in uniform, we're alright..

Idealism, I spit on it.

[Mick Mac]

On facial expressions it looks like David. Ed looks disappointed.

But its Ed. There you go.

It seems Ed won the Union and Affilates sections.

He seems incedibly dull.

[orchard]

That's at least 10 years in Opposition then for Labour.

[????]

..and a few quid in my Betfair account

[Mick Mac]

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.

[katie1997]

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]

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

[Michael Palaeologus]

Ed - safe candidate - not a Tony look-a-likey Blairite or a Brownite; but he is white and male so ... safe.

[Marmora Man]

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.

[RosieH]

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.

[Brendan]

Which is ironic considering that fact that unions were formed originally in order to protect people from exploitation by private employers.

You would think you could trust the state not to exploit its workforce.

You would think.

[RosieH]

Christ I'm depressed.

[katie1997]

I had no idea what proportion of the workforce are represented by Trade Unions.

However, Ed Miliband's appointment will undoubtedly be a gift to the opposition who will say that he is in their pockets.

Ed hasn't ever had a 'proper' job either.

[legalbeagle]

RosieH Wrote:

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

> Christ I'm depressed.

Run for parliament! Politicians are only terrible cos no one else wants to do it!

[Huguenot]

Come on pookie, it's just a setback, that's all.

[RosieH]

Ed is the best of the bunch policy and principle-wise.

Problem is, he's pretty unelectable. Perhaps 4 years in opposition can fit him for purpose.

[Mick Mac]

Make that 14 years rosie. The OP was supportive of kinnock and this was the start of the party being electable. Today is a bad day for labour and reflects their shift to left post blair.

[david_carnell]

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.

[RosieH]

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.

[matthew123]

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.

[david_carnell]

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.

[Mick Mac]

Spot on Matt.

Not so good David C.