[Dickyboy]

What could / should the Labour Party do to become more popular with their traditional voters?
I'm pretty sure that it's more than just changing the leadership.
Do they need to change their policies, or just word them in a more positive and concise manner?
To me they seemed to have many of the right policies, but didn't put them across very well, or even badly.

 

[willincity]

Tony Blair eviscerating summary of Labour’s election 2019 campaign. Probably for the first time since 2006 he’s getting really listened to by Labour people without the usual “mass murderer”, “red Tory” accusations.

For many the penny seems to be dropping.

 

[frangio]

What could / should the Labour Party do to become more popular with their traditional voters?
I'm pretty sure that it's more than just changing the leadership.
Do they need to change their policies, or just word them in a more positive and concise manner?
To me they seemed to have many of the right policies, but didn't put them across very well, or even badly.

I think their biggest problem was sitting on at least a couple of fences.

On Brexit and Indyref2 they had no clear policy and it depended which spokesperson was speaking what you thought they might be saying.

Richard Leonard got in a real tangle, when interviewed on Radio Scotland, trying to justify Labour policy of renewing Trident even though he is a life long member of CND!

 

[RHP]

Tony Blair is the only Labour leader to win an election in 45 years which surely demonstrates the policies are unelectable.

Someone made the comment a week back 'we're already a socialist country...' it's a great observation as Boris has pledged a further 34 billion to the current 138 billion NHS budget and social services get 70 billion already etc... Apart from free money which it looked like Labour was indeed promising, what part of the socialist dream is missing?

Shouldn't Labour now turn on the NHS and crusade against wastage and inefficiency? Shouldn't Labour propose to revive manufacturing through initial subsidies gained from money saved from other less efficient costs?

Labour has to stop being a negative party and rid themselves of failed aspirations. Focus on creating long term sustainable jobs, new industries, support entrepreneurs, innovation and R&D. Shock everyone by reducing taxes where jobs are created. Did Labour even propose to create industrial jobs in their last manifesto....?

Government is a business, the standard of management has to be equal to the task. It's clear looking at the Labour front bench that they couldn't run a sweet shop never mind the country so bring in dynamic thinkers who would challenge the Tories on every policy because their own policies would be better.

 

[sparkie2182]

Has anyone ever known a government which has not made promises about savings made my "greater efficiencies"?

 

[enzoneo]

Labour are trying to formulate policies that they as a party want without any regard for what the electorate want. If their policies were/are so good surely they would have got many more votes than they actually did. Changing the leader only removes him as being a reason not to vote Labour, is that enough? If Blair had to move to the centre to get elected and a more left wing labour party hasn't won an election for n years then that must indicate something.

 

[RHP]

Has anyone ever known a government which has not made promises about savings made my "greater efficiencies"?

Not when it comes to the NHS, no. It was more important for Boris to throw another 34 billion at the NHS rather than spend the current 138 billion efficiently....

The estimated government spending for 2020:

Spending Functions March 2020
Pensions £161.1 billion
Health Care £162 billion
Education £91.8 billion
Defence £50.3 billion
Welfare £126.3 billion
Protection £33.3 billion
Transportation £34.7 billion
Gen. Government £16.9 billion
Other Spending £117.9 billion
Interest £51.7 billion
Total £847.6 billion

...so the £162 billion NHS bill represents 20% of government budget yet doesn't appear to be accountable to the government for efficiency, nor do recent governments appear to be trying to hold them to account for fear of losing votes.

 

[KEITHMAR]

I still do not believe Him, nor do I believe the Conservative Party , What have They got to show as POSITIVE improvements to the lives of the poorer, needy, discapacitated members of British society after TEN YEARS in Power??Answers on a postage stamp please!And They won·t be able to show anything positive , inspite of all that money THAT APPEARS to be avala ble!!

 

[Winmar]

To answer Dickyboy's initial question, simple answer...............stop electing Cnuts to senior positions would be a very good start!

 

[BlythSpirit]

To answer Dickyboy's initial question, simple answer............... nobody gives a sh1t, they got deservedly hammered.

 

[graham]

MPs ignore the vote of the people and face the consequence graham ex union secretary queens dock Swansea

 

[willincity]

Didn't know where to put my thoughts on this so followed the last header:

It’s Starmer’s election to lose. IMO He’ll win it by a length. I don’t think it’ll be close. He’ll gobble up the second votes and he’s going to win the biggest union block votes. Even Unite doesn’t seem united on this, old Len is looking v wobbly.

I’m close to a lot of Labour voters living in West Yorkshire, quite a few are Momentum members, most (not all) are holding their nose and going for Starmer.

In my book its going to be Starmer by a distance.
Edit
apologies for additional comments but:

It's clear the next election for Labour isn't about winning. It's about having a party and leadership that is credible for the 2030's. Similar to the situation Kinnock and Hattersley found themselves in. They don't need PM material as a leader but someone who can sort the Labour Party out.

 

[stein]

The labour parties (democratic socialists) are shrinking all over Europe. And I have a simple, perhaps somewhat crude explanation for that. They have aleniated their base of voters. It used to be that they fought for more pay, better working conditions and shorter hours for the man doing physical work on a payroll. And that was that. Now they are fighting for the interests of discriminated women, wherever they are discriminated, and likewise for blacks, gays and half gays, Sikhs, Muslims, greens, vegetarians, non-smokers, domino players and... Well, I might be stretching this list a little, but I remember when the labour party was a working man's party, short and clear. (The subordinate paper shifters in the office building were just wimps and spit lickers, they did not count as workers at all .)

 

[barry john macauley]

A lot of us were Gay in the old days, now most of us are totally Miserable.

 

[Engine Serang]

Elect Mr Starmer. Let him start to weed out the loonies. Develop half a dozen sensible policies. Provide a thoughtful and credible Opposition. Let the Conservatives under Boris self implode, as they surely will. Add a little bit of focused ridicule now and then at PMQ's. And Bob's your Uncle. Off to Kiss Hands.

QED, as Boris would say.

 

[John Jarman]

The labour parties (democratic socialists) are shrinking all over Europe. And I have a simple, perhaps somewhat crude explanation for that. They have aleniated their base of voters. It used to be that they fought for more pay, better working conditions and shorter hours for the man doing physical work on a payroll. And that was that. Now they are fighting for the interests of discriminated women, wherever they are discriminated, and likewise for blacks, gays and half gays, Sikhs, Muslims, greens, vegetarians, non-smokers, domino players and... Well, I might be stretching this list a little, but I remember when the labour party was a working man's party, short and clear. (The subordinate paper shifters in the office building were just wimps and spit lickers, they did not count as workers at all .)

Exactly. Good post Svein.

JJ.

 

[sparkie2182]

Is it wrong to fight for ANYONE who is a victim of discrimination?

 

[barry john macauley]

If someone is being discriminated against, then they must have annoyed someone. The degree of discrimination should correspond with the number of people who have been annoyed.

 

[sparkie2182]

"If someone is being discriminated against, then they must have annoyed someone"

...... Classic.

😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁😁

 

[Basil]

If someone is being discriminated against, then they must have annoyed someone. The degree of discrimination should correspond with the number of people who have been annoyed.

Made my day! (Thumb)