Labour Can't Win on Austerity Agenda

angrypirate

Len McCluskey talks sense for once. I suppose the law of averages means that sooner or later it was inevitable. Basically saying Labour have to figure out a proper alternative to austerity if they are to win the next General Election instead of just giving a watered down version of the coalition's plans.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22262030

Thrugelmir

angrypirate wrote: »

Len McCluskey talks sense for once.

Not sense. It's a veiled threat for funding to the Labour party. As the Unions use their monetary influence to dictate economic policy. I seem to recall this happening some years ago.....:think:

sheffield_lad

I heard McCluskey ($!um bag), on Radio 5 this am. He seems to want to drive the public sector into strikes which is a pity as the private sector will not endorse such a move.

The same goes for a lurch to the left, sure the majority of PS & unemployed will vote for a donkey with a red ribbon on it but Private sector workers and pensioners want centre ground.

A headache for Ed I think.

Thrugelmir

sheffield_lad wrote: »

sure the majority of PS & unemployed will vote for a donkey with a red ribbon on it

This time is certainly different as much more apathy.

Len McCluskey of Unite received more than 144,000 votes, compared with almost 80,000 for the other candidate, Jerry Hicks.

The result was much closer than expected, with the turnout just over 15 per cent.

Hardly a ringing endorsement.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/unites-leader-len-mccluskey-is-reelected-8572642.html

A headache for Ed I think.

More than that.......

Mr McCluskey was recently re-elected to another five-year term as general secretary of Unite. The union has donated more than £7 million to Labour since the 2010 election, making it the party’s biggest financial backer.

Generali

angrypirate wrote: »

Len McCluskey talks sense for once. I suppose the law of averages means that sooner or later it was inevitable. Basically saying Labour have to figure out a proper alternative to austerity if they are to win the next General Election instead of just giving a watered down version of the coalition's plans.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22262030

Interesting piece, thanks for posting.

It highlights a problem for Labour. What exactly are they going to overturn? Will they bring back the previous welfare system? They probably can't afford it at a cost of 2-3% of GDP from memory. So what is the alternative?

Everso slightly less austerity isn't much of a rallying cry, Red Len is clearly right there. If Labour promise to spend a fortune then the markets will simply revolt if they win. Bond buyers aren't mugs and very few of them are prepared to pay for someone else's fantasies of a socialist Utopia.

Moby

angrypirate wrote: »

Len McCluskey talks sense for once. I suppose the law of averages means that sooner or later it was inevitable. Basically saying Labour have to figure out a proper alternative to austerity if they are to win the next General Election instead of just giving a watered down version of the coalition's plans.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22262030

Its a mistake to think Labour is boxed in by only having the option of a 'watered down' austerity programme. There are hard choices to be made...no doubt about that but its all about what the emphasis will be on re. austerity/cuts. Don't forget Miliband will also benefit from the visible failure of the present incumbents to deal with the issues after 5 years. Obama is doing ok...GOP are in retreat. Its also about who is the messenger not just what the message is! We live in interesting times and for me it is so unpredictable as to who will win the next election etc.

Devon_Sailor

Very interesting thanks for posting.

I posted this link on the Austerity thread: An excellent piece in today's Telegraph. Overall figure for cut in Public spending 2010-2017 just 2.7%.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/10013370/Keynesians-are-wrong-because-George-Osbornes-cuts-are-actually-very-modest.html

That is an economic insignificance.........

The big question for McClusky and the other Union leaders is just how they will react. They have gone all out in attacking the current proposals; if economic reality bites after a Labour election, do they play "statesmanlike" and take the foot off the grumpy pedal, or do they go back to the old school tactic of riding roughshod over the elected Govnt?

The former brands them as hypocrites; the latter, dinosoaurs which could see Labour booted out in the immediate following election, possibly for quite some time.

I think they have boxed themselves into a corner by being so immediately "anti" every Govt proposal this time round...they have no wiggle room left.

Regards,

DS

Generali

Moby wrote: »

Obama is doing ok...GOP are in retreat.

I'm not sure where you get your news from but my guess is that it's not from news providers around the centre of politics in the USA.

The Left wasn't given a mandate alone in the US, nor was the GOP. They were each elected to run different 2 of 3 parts of the Government (executive and legislature) per the US Constitution which likes not to give too much power to one particular body while giving a great deal of power to each body, a strangely effective way of doing things.

Moby

Generali wrote: »

I'm not sure where you get your news from but my guess is that it's not from news providers around the centre of politics in the USA.

The Left wasn't given a mandate alone in the US, nor was the GOP. They were each elected to run different 2 of 3 parts of the Government (executive and legislature) per the US Constitution which likes not to give too much power to one particular body while giving a great deal of power to each body, a strangely effective way of doing things.

They are totally split though:-

http://www.ibtimes.com/republican-civil-war-who-wins-tea-party-rand-paul-rush-limbaugh-mainstream-karl-rove-or-social#

Generali

Moby wrote: »

They are totally split though:-

http://www.ibtimes.com/republican-civil-war-who-wins-tea-party-rand-paul-rush-limbaugh-mainstream-karl-rove-or-social#

That's just how American politics works though. Both the Democrats and Republicans contain a very wide range of views.

Compare someone on the hard left, NE Liberal wing of the Democrats like Jack Kennedy with someone more mainstream like Clinton, possibly the archetypal post-Civil Rights Movement Southern Democrat. They agreed with each other on very little. That doesn't make the Democrats dysfunctional, just a product of US politics.

Similarly, the areas of agreement between Rand Paul and George W Bush would be small but both are comfortable in the broader group that is the GOP.

That's how the Americans like their politics.

Kennyboy66

Devon_Sailor wrote: »

I think they have boxed themselves into a corner by being so immediately "anti" every Govt proposal this time round...they have no wiggle room left.

Regards,

DS

This is pure nonsense. Labour will lose if the economy is starting to look better and people think that they would do a worse job on the economy than the con/dems. Both are fairly likely if you ask me.

The manifestos will be broadly similar in terms of what each party will spend - thats the way it has been for the last 4 elections.