The future for New Labour?

#1
The New Labour Project was created in the mid-90s. It recognised that the 'true' left-wing socialism of old Labour was not desired by the country and thus not going to get them back into power. So, Tony Blair marched them into the centre-right of politics, but cleverly kept the lavish spending policies of socialism in those areas that helped their core left-wing support. 3 elections were then won on marketing not substance. New Labour were not elected because of ideology, but because of better media management and selling their product better than the opposition.

The wheels have now fallen off the New Labour machine. So where does it go from here?

My analysis suggests that going back to its roots would probably be the sensible path. The election was lost because of many reasons, but the key one was that their bandaging of socialist spending policies to a centre-right conservative economy was and is unsustainable. However magnificent the sales-patter, you cannot turn mutton into lamb. The New Labour Project failed at the level of policy coherence and substance.

Secondly, if we consider the voting trends around the country, New Labour has hemorrhaged votes steadily over the past 13 years: 13.5 million to 8.6 million. However, this year there has been quite a significant upswing in traditional old Labour areas. In effect, those voting for (New) Labour has shifted markedly back to old Labour.

If you then factor in the LibDem vote at 23%, the left-of-centre vote actually exceeds 50% of the turnout - just. In 1997, the right-of-centre vote was probably just over 50% (assuming a large chunk of New Labour support was their new found centre-right fan).

It thus seems to me, that there is a very large pointer that New Labour should return to its traditional roots and firmly camp itself back in left-wing political and economic territory. It's clearly what their grass roots support wants, but will they have the courage of their convictions and ideology to do it? Or will they try to rehash their team and narrative to continue pretending to be centre-right and hope to continue participating elections on gimmicks not substance?
 

Auld-Yin

ADC
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Reviews Editor
#2
The answer yo are seeking lies in two different camps with 2 very different answers. IMHO.

The grass roots labour supporter does want to go back to the left wing socialist side - in fact they have never left and had no say in the re-branding to New Labour.

The MPs and those attached to the power coattails will go whatever way keeps them in power and the majority of them would give up just about any principle to remain there.

Blair's taking Labour to New Labour after kicking out John Major was sprung on the voters after the election following his announcement in Parliament. He then went on to continue with many of Major's policies just rebranding them New Labour. Blair was not and still is not a socialist IMO but saw the Labour Party as the easiest route to power.
 
#3
It should be COMPULSoRY Euthansia for the lot! :x :x
 
#4
The future for New Labour?

Civil war
 
#5
whitecity said:
3 elections were then won on marketing not substance. New Labour were not elected because of ideology, but because of better media management and selling their product better than the opposition.
Also because the Tories were absolutely dire before Dave. The Tories haemorrhaged votes to UKIP and the BNP. Oh - and I expect having Max Caller, former Chief Executive of Hackney council in charge of setting constituency boundaries didn't hurt either.


whitecity said:
My analysis suggests that going back to its roots would probably be the sensible path.
I do hope so. If they go the same way as they did in the early 80s, they'll be set for another generation in the wilderness. Gordon did worse last Thursday than Michael Foot did in 1983 so they'll have a job on their hands.

Harriet for leader of the opposition I say - if she can prise Gordon's fingers from the reins of power.



whitecity said:
If you then factor in the LibDem vote at 23%, the left-of-centre vote actually exceeds 50% of the turnout - just.
Perhaps unsurprising as just over 50% of the population obtain their income from the government.

whitecity said:
It thus seems to me, that there is a very large pointer that New Labour should return to its traditional roots and firmly camp itself back in left-wing political and economic territory. It's clearly what their grass roots support wants, but will they have the courage of their convictions and ideology to do it? Or will they try to rehash their team and narrative to continue pretending to be centre-right and hope to continue participating elections on gimmicks not substance?
I think you are right. 'The Trots are coming' has been an oft heard cry among Labour MPs - and not because it's real ale week at the Terrace Bar. They'll lurch to the left.
 
#6
Ancient_Mariner said:
I do hope so. If they go the same way as they did in the early 80s, they'll be set for another generation in the wilderness. Gordon did worse last Thursday than Michael Foot did in 1983 so they'll have a job on their hands.
Ancient_Mariner,

Broadlyspeaking, you offer up some solid points that need discussion. So why do you have to 'prove' your point over and over again with mistruths and utter nonsense????

New Labour 2010: 8,604,358 total votes, 29% share and 258 seats.
Labour 1983: 8,456,354 total votes, 27.6% share and 209 seats.

Ancient_Mariner said:
Perhaps unsurprising as just over 50% of the population obtain their income from the government.
And where did you pluck that gem from? Or are you liberally including yourself as a New Labour welfare sponger now that you claim a pension?
 
#7
whitecity said:
Ancient_Mariner said:
I do hope so. If they go the same way as they did in the early 80s, they'll be set for another generation in the wilderness. Gordon did worse last Thursday than Michael Foot did in 1983 so they'll have a job on their hands.
Ancient_Mariner,

Broadlyspeaking, you offer up some solid points that need discussion. So why do you have to 'prove' your point over and over again with mistruths and utter nonsense????

New Labour 2010: 8,604,358 total votes, 29% share and 258 seats.
Labour 1983: 8,456,354 total votes, 27.6% share and 209 seats.

Ancient_Mariner said:
Perhaps unsurprising as just over 50% of the population obtain their income from the government.
And where did you pluck that gem from? Or are you liberally including yourself as a New Labour welfare sponger now that you claim a pension?
Gordon lost 91 seats last week. Michael Foot lost 60 in 1983. That's the measure I used.

The Office for National Statistics publishes quarterly employment data. You can get the latest one in your local library or root around on the ONS web site for the raw data.

The last published data showed that slightly more than 30% of working age adults live off welfare while slightly over 20% work for the government. IIRC, the total was 53% of working age adults living off the state.
 
#9
Ancient_Mariner said:
Gordon lost 91 seats last week. Michael Foot lost 60 in 1983. That's the measure I used.
So you plucked one statistic out of context and ignored everything else. That's one of Whet's tactics.

Not very helpful if you want to be taken seriously.

Ancient_Mariner said:
The last published data showed that slightly more than 30% of working age adults live off welfare while slightly over 20% work for the government. IIRC, the total was 53% of working age adults living off the state.
You first said "50% of the population obtain their income from the government". I see you've now changed it to working age adults. Why not say the correct thing in the first place?

It was only a week or two ago you got pulled up for using this porkie. You even apologised for your error. Why do you use it again? Hoping ARRSE readers are too daft to spot your repetition?

Why do you need to use mistruths when the truth is bad enough in its own right?
 
#10
BEWARE, Dark forces are abroad, where the f**k is that cnut Mandelscum
 
#11
whitecity said:
Ancient_Mariner said:
Gordon lost 91 seats last week. Michael Foot lost 60 in 1983. That's the measure I used.
So you plucked one statistic out of context and ignored everything else. That's one of Whet's tactics.

Not very helpful if you want to be taken seriously.

Ancient_Mariner said:
The last published data showed that slightly more than 30% of working age adults live off welfare while slightly over 20% work for the government. IIRC, the total was 53% of working age adults living off the state.
You first said "50% of the population obtain their income from the government". I see you've now changed it to working age adults. Why not say the correct thing in the first place?

It was only a week or two ago you got pulled up for using this porkie. You even apologised for your error. Why do you use it again? Hoping ARRSE readers are too daft to spot your repetition?

Why do you need to use mistruths when the truth is bad enough in its own right?
O dearie..dearie me must I really go to the trouble of cut 'n' paste of your mis-truths..we can start with your BNP thread..."Euro election/General election" etc-etc..I've looked at a past few of your posts as well...take some advice...don't go there..you'll be made to look a bigger knobber than you already look.... :)
 
#12
BlueDanubeWalt said:
O dearie..dearie me must I really go to the trouble of cut 'n' paste of your mis-truths..we can start with your BNP thread..."Euro election/General election" etc-etc..I've looked at a past few of your posts as well...take some advice...don't go there..you'll be made to look a bigger knobber than you already look.... :)
Go for it! You wrote garbage in that thread trying to big-up the marginal advance of a fringe party. I'm more than happy to expose your garbage once more. However, I suspect it will just end up being locked like the last one.
 

mercurydancer

LE
Book Reviewer
#13
The line of argument that 50% (or whatever percentage) get income from the government is a very divisive statistic.

I work in the NHS. I work (for Cunard too). The government is my employer and not a good one for that matter, but I work. I dont get benefits or anything like it. I object to being lumped with the parts of the community who dont want to work and rely on benefits. I have no objection to people who are genuinely disabled and for that matter many who are genuinely disabled want to work. I share an office with someone who is disabled and his work ethic is stronger than mine.

It does not necessarily mean that I am a Labour voter, in fact I'm far from it.
 
#14
Ancient_Mariner said:
whitecity said:
Ancient_Mariner said:
I do hope so. If they go the same way as they did in the early 80s, they'll be set for another generation in the wilderness. Gordon did worse last Thursday than Michael Foot did in 1983 so they'll have a job on their hands.
Ancient_Mariner,

Broadlyspeaking, you offer up some solid points that need discussion. So why do you have to 'prove' your point over and over again with mistruths and utter nonsense????

New Labour 2010: 8,604,358 total votes, 29% share and 258 seats.
Labour 1983: 8,456,354 total votes, 27.6% share and 209 seats.

Ancient_Mariner said:
Perhaps unsurprising as just over 50% of the population obtain their income from the government.
And where did you pluck that gem from? Or are you liberally including yourself as a New Labour welfare sponger now that you claim a pension?
Gordon lost 91 seats last week. Michael Foot lost 60 in 1983. That's the measure I used.

The Office for National Statistics publishes quarterly employment data. You can get the latest one in your local library or root around on the ONS web site for the raw data.

The last published data showed that slightly more than 30% of working age adults live off welfare while slightly over 20% work for the government. IIRC, the total was 53% of working age adults living off the state.
What does that mean exactly? Does "living off welfare" include things like tax credits, child benefit, income support etc? Does it include, therefore, people actually in work, but receiving a bit of help?

James Bartholomew, author of "The Welfare State" reckons that "28 per cent of working age people do not work. Most of them are on benefits" - ie less than 28% are on benefits.
 
#15
Whatever the percentages and figures are/aren't being argued over one thing sticks out of the bleeding obvious.
We cannot go on paying out more in benefits (of whatever kind) than we raise by taxes.
Where does the deficit come from then, the tooth fairy?
The economics of the madhouse that will take the next TWO generations to clear while we still pump out 20% of illiterate schoolkids.
Future historians will look back and ask "Where the fcuk DID all that dosh go then?
 
#16
harrythebastard said:
Future historians will look back and ask "Where the fcuk DID all that dosh go then?
Here: http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1845298322/?tag=armrumser-21

In summary (from one of the reviews)

- lazy promotion of pseudo growth by the active encouragement of low wage immigration on a scale never experienced before
- cuts in spending on equipment for the soldiers in the field at a time when the government pursues a deeply flawed policy of invasion (that was opposed by the mass of the UK populace
- growth in administrators and 'management' far in excess of the growth in numbers of nurses, police, soldiers and teachers
- profligate government borrowing at a time when the economy was buoyant to be paid back when the business cycle is reversed
- Public Private Finance 'Initiatives' that have increased the costs of the services being provided and which have been so badly managed that the tax payer will be carrying an unprecedented economic burden for decades to come
- pension policies that mean 99% of civil servants have essentially unfunded, inflation-proof, final salary based pensions, while 72% of the private work force have nothing that compares to this - yet who have ot foot the bill out of future taxes (not out of pension funds that are earning interest)
- above all, our money has been spent and our futures put in hock without achieving any compensatory benefits: failing, dirty hospitals, new and refurbished schools whose new designs are condemned as 'mediocre' by the National Audit Commitee; falling education standards and higher rates of illiteracy; more serious crimes and increaing numbers of prisoners despite large sums spent on policing
- sale of over half the nation's gold stock when the gold market was at rock bottom, handled in such an absurd way that the price was driven even lower before the gold was even sold - putting billions in the hands of a Chinese Government wise enough to buy when price was low
- creation of quangos lined with unqualified party faithful who are now also on inflation-proof final salary linked pensions and who have absolutely no accountability to the people or the government
- pumping of money needlessly into a corrupt, unaccountable and self-serving EU whose accounts have been rejected by auditors for 11 years
- increasing the number of MPs while 50 - 60% of law making is now done from Brussels
- foolhardy promotion of poorly specified, intrinsically unworkable software projects such as ID cards and national databases, whose costs escalate while their benefits either recede or disappear
- billions spent irresponsibly on consultants who added little value and on projects whose budgets are invariably out of control, from NHS computers to Olympic villages.

msr
 
#17
tropper66 said:
BEWARE, Dark forces are abroad, where the f**k is that cnut Mandelscum
He's behind YOU!
 
#18
ashie said:
What does that mean exactly? Does "living off welfare" include things like tax credits, child benefit, income support etc? Does it include, therefore, people actually in work, but receiving a bit of help?

James Bartholomew, author of "The Welfare State" reckons that "28 per cent of working age people do not work. Most of them are on benefits" - ie less than 28% are on benefits.
Living off welfare is defined by the ONS as obtaining more than half of your income from welfare benefits. That pretty much excludes anybody with a job.

"The Welfare State We're In" was published over 5 years ago. The ONS data gives figures for the last quarter.
 
#19
whitecity said:
The New Labour Project was created in the mid-90s. It recognised that the 'true' left-wing socialism of old Labour was not desired by the country and thus not going to get them back into power. So, Tony Blair marched them into the centre-right of politics, but cleverly kept the lavish spending policies of socialism in those areas that helped their core left-wing support. 3 elections were then won on marketing not substance. New Labour were not elected because of ideology, but because of better media management and selling their product better than the opposition.

The wheels have now fallen off the New Labour machine. So where does it go from here?
With a spot of luck, into the same dustbin that contains communism, marxism and assorted dictatorships. Socialism as a creed, as practiced in Britain appears to largely consist of taxing, borrowing and spending, spending, spending. Eventually the money runs out, the electorate get annoyed with a Government failing to provide them with endless sweeties and like spoiled children proceed to revolt.

The government that inevitably replaces Socialism is always pretty revolting, but then Conservatism always seems to be the political equivalent of a bloke with a brush and shovel; as soon as it gets things turned around a new generation of morons votes the Socialists back in, and round we go again to prove once more that there ain't no end to human stupidity.

So, cease bemoaning the long, hard days ahead. You had your Socialist party in the sun, now you've got to pay for it. When you're done, you can party again like a good little leftie twerp.
 
#20
ashie said:
Ancient_Mariner said:
whitecity said:
Ancient_Mariner said:
I do hope so. If they go the same way as they did in the early 80s, they'll be set for another generation in the wilderness. Gordon did worse last Thursday than Michael Foot did in 1983 so they'll have a job on their hands.
Ancient_Mariner,

Broadlyspeaking, you offer up some solid points that need discussion. So why do you have to 'prove' your point over and over again with mistruths and utter nonsense????

New Labour 2010: 8,604,358 total votes, 29% share and 258 seats.
Labour 1983: 8,456,354 total votes, 27.6% share and 209 seats.

Ancient_Mariner said:
Perhaps unsurprising as just over 50% of the population obtain their income from the government.
And where did you pluck that gem from? Or are you liberally including yourself as a New Labour welfare sponger now that you claim a pension?
Gordon lost 91 seats last week. Michael Foot lost 60 in 1983. That's the measure I used.

The Office for National Statistics publishes quarterly employment data. You can get the latest one in your local library or root around on the ONS web site for the raw data.

The last published data showed that slightly more than 30% of working age adults live off welfare while slightly over 20% work for the government. IIRC, the total was 53% of working age adults living off the state.
What does that mean exactly? Does "living off welfare" include things like tax credits, child benefit, income support etc? Does it include, therefore, people actually in work, but receiving a bit of help?

James Bartholomew, author of "The Welfare State" reckons that "28 per cent of working age people do not work. Most of them are on benefits" - ie less than 28% are on benefits.

Do you understand the concept of supporting yourself by your own means?
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads