Why Labour lost

marklv

julieq wrote: »

And here we have the curse of populism striking again. Cameron has in fact vetoed the end of free milk for the under 5s - a hangover from rickets post war - not because free milk is needed or rickets is on the rise again, but because he knows that he'll be branded a "milk snatcher" by the Labour party, just as Thatcher was, and that'll stick. So we're wasting money giving milk to children who mostly have it anyway, and of which a historically high percentage are clinically obese, because and only because of mindless populism. Nice one, Labour party.

Heard from friends that at Brighton Pride yesterday the Labour party were handing out "Never Kissed a Tory" placards. Pride is supposed to be removing marginalisation, it's scandalous they were politicising it. But not surprising.

I'm with you on this one. And guess where the savings that would have been made from getting rid of this freebie are going to come from now? You guessed it - extra redundancies in the public sector. So maybe several hundred more jobs will disappear in order to preserve free milk for the toddlers. What's more important? Giving milk away or saving jobs?

marklv

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Precisely my point. New Labour was born to take Labour into middle ground. That was Blair's appeal in 1997 something fresh, not the the "old labour". Union dominated, union funded etc. Predominately all the candidates for the leadership are leaning "leftwards" , more towards pre 1997 political views. Having the endorsement of individuals such as Bob Crowe fills me with dread.

So at the next election there will most likely be a difference in what the electorate at the ballot box will be voting for. So I can envisage"LibDem" picking up liberal socialists vote from the middle ground.

No, I disagree. Certainly, the 4X4 driving, suited and laptop carrying brigade in the south-east will not vote for a 'Kinnockite' Labour Party, but there are plenty of people outside this area who will. The Lib-Dems, despite their current nadir, will pick up votes again from the libertarian middle class, but I don't think the Lib-Dems will do well at the next election. They'll be lucky to get 18% of the vote - maybe 15% is as much as they'll manage, and AV, even if voted in, is unlikely to give them many more seats. What happens in the next election is largely dependant on how Cameron manages his programme of cuts and when exactly the election will take place. The Tories will benefit from either a very early or late election, while one in 2-3 years could benefit Labour.

markharding557

while one in 2-3 years could benefit Labour.

Why do you think this?

marklv

markharding557 wrote: »

Why do you think this?

Why? Because by then the full weight of the Tory cuts will be deeply felt and many thousands of people will have joined the dole queue.

Spartacus_Mills

StevieJ wrote: »

I think Anne Milton could see the positive advantages in being labled the 2nd coming of Thatcher, Cameron on the other hand would not want that

Shirley Williams was the last government Minister to take Milk of children. Why would she not be labelled the second coming of Shirley Williams ?

In office Labour took more milk of children than the Tories and did it twice. In 1969 and in 1977.

Spartacus_Mills

marklv wrote: »

Why? Because by then the full weight of the Tory cuts will be deeply felt and many thousands of people will have joined the dole queue.

Had Labour got in many of these cuts we are now seeing would have taken place. Labour do not have clean hands on this both for causing this scenario and also for their remedy which would have been pretty much the same.

michaels

Had to google this and found this:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/politics/article-23865192-labour-snatched-milk-from-children-first-says-ex-minister.do

Amazing how the media manage to perpetuate a myth so that it is recognised wisdom despite the facts being a lot more nuanced - I thought I was fairly well informed but until today if you had asked me who removed free milk from school children I would have said Mrs T.

Spartacus_Mills wrote: »

Shirley Williams was the last government Minister to take Milk of children. Why would she not be labelled the second coming of Shirley Williams ?

In office Labour took more milk of children than the Tories and did it twice. In 1969 and in 1977.

Spartacus_Mills

michaels wrote: »

Had to google this and found this:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/politics/article-23865192-labour-snatched-milk-from-children-first-says-ex-minister.do

Amazing how the media manage to perpetuate a myth so that it is recognised wisdom despite the facts being a lot more nuanced - I thought I was fairly well informed but until today if you had asked me who removed free milk from school children I would have said Mrs T.

Well I guess it helped that Thatcher rhymed with Snatcher but, let's face it, the left wing media and the BBC (no friend of anyone bar Labour's) are hardly likely to want to report this in factual terms when a bit or coalition bashing is up for grabs. Let's face it, Labour were sensible on this and remained quite quiet for them.

I always thought it was Patrick Walker who took the milk in the sixties and not Ted Short.

markharding557

In my opinion the bbc are bit by bit falling on line with their new conservative masters

marklv

Spartacus_Mills wrote: »

Had Labour got in many of these cuts we are now seeing would have taken place. Labour do not have clean hands on this both for causing this scenario and also for their remedy which would have been pretty much the same.

True to a certain extent, but the cuts would have been less deep.