Labour Can't Win on Austerity Agenda

antrobus

angrypirate wrote: »

Len McCluskey talks sense for once. ....

Ed M says different.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22283127

Devon_Sailor

Kennyboy66 wrote: »

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.

Kenny,

Whilst I actually agree with your overall assessment completely (any upturn by 2015 and the Cons can say "yes we told you so"...fingers crossed), I stand by my comments.

My comment that you highlighted referred quite clearly to McClusky and the Unions, not the Labour party. The Trades Union have opposed tax rises. They have opposed tax cuts. They have opposed every single "cut" on government department spending. They have opposed Welfare reforms. They have opposed pretty much everything.

My perfectly reasonable question was, having opposed even the smallest of actual real terms cuts made by this Coalition, IF their "mates" get into power, what do they do if Ed and Ed decide to cut? Do they bring "their" party to its knees and hold them to ransom like the 60s/70s?

I think, much as you do it would appear, that the economy will turn well before 2015. Two years is an awfully long time in politics, and once you string together a few quarters of growth, most "sins" will be forgiven by the general public in the hope of some sort of continued recovery - especially as the "they broke it, dont let the b*ggers back in to break it again" campaigning line will hold more resonance.

Regards

DS

princeofpounds

Question - who ARE the trade unions these days?

I mean, it's not like we have loads of miners, dockers and factory workers in the way that we used to.

Most people I know who genuinely work in jobs at the lowest rungs (eg starbucks, call centres, office admin) are not unionised and unions are basically irrelevant to them.

Are most unions public sector now?

And the people who are in unions - are they really as political as the unions themselves? Most people I know in the unions are interested in access to legal advice and some collective representation, not paying for Harriet Harman or supporting the Morning Star newspaper (which I understand McCluskey does).

I don't know - anyone involved or have contact and know what is really driving them these days?

grizzly1911

princeofpounds wrote: »

Are most unions public sector now?

And the people who are in unions - are they really as political as the unions themselves? Most people I know in the unions are interested in access to legal advice and some collective representation, not paying for Harriet Harman or supporting the Morning Star newspaper (which I understand McCluskey does).

I don't know - anyone involved or have contact and know what is really driving them these days?

Still representation in finance AFAIK.

IME it is for legal advice, representation in the event of claims for "wrong doing" and collective representation as you say. Some of the medical associated bodies cover things like negligence claims AIUI.

I used to deliver two copies of the Morning Star, to a polytechnic lecturer well over 30 years ago, on my paper round. Surprised it is still going.

Moby

princeofpounds wrote: »

Question - who ARE the trade unions these days?

I mean, it's not like we have loads of miners, dockers and factory workers in the way that we used to.

Most people I know who genuinely work in jobs at the lowest rungs (eg starbucks, call centres, office admin) are not unionised and unions are basically irrelevant to them.

Are most unions public sector now?

And the people who are in unions - are they really as political as the unions themselves? Most people I know in the unions are interested in access to legal advice and some collective representation, not paying for Harriet Harman or supporting the Morning Star newspaper (which I understand McCluskey does).

I don't know - anyone involved or have contact and know what is really driving them these days?

Totally spot on but it serves the political agenda of our right wing bretheren to paint them as still dangerous and likely to lead us down the path to revolution given the chance...remember the tories are good at preying on your fears whether its immigration, benefit scroungers, trade unions etc. They rule and represent the interests of the rich by dividing the rest!

Moby

Generali wrote: »

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.

This skates over the current internal debate within GOP regarding the future direction of the party and the need to appeal to the growing latino population. The changing demographic profile of the population is a game changer.

Generali

Moby wrote: »

This skates over the current internal debate within GOP regarding the future direction of the party and the need to appeal to the growing latino population. The changing demographic profile of the population is a game changer.

Indeed.

Don't make the mistake of thinking GOP = racist party. The politics of race in the US are far more complex than that. Don't forget that Lincoln the emancipator was a Republican and the Confederacy was supported by the slave owning Democrats. Those same Democrats signed civil rights legislation into law 100 years later.

Moby

Generali wrote: »

Indeed.

Don't make the mistake of thinking GOP = racist party. The politics of race in the US are far more complex than that. Don't forget that Lincoln the emancipator was a Republican and the Confederacy was supported by the slave owning Democrats. Those same Democrats signed civil rights legislation into law 100 years later.

True the politics of race are complex....... and remember Lincoln was always motivated by political expediency as well as principle. I think it's generally accepted that GOP draws more support from traditional white working class and the Democrats from minorities though. Also GOP strategy has gone badly wrong recently because they have lost the Latino support that they had cultivated under Bush.

Generali

Moby wrote: »

True the politics of race are complex....... and remember Lincoln was always motivated by political expediency as well as principle. I think it's generally accepted that GOP draws more support from traditional white working class and the Democrats from minorities though. Also GOP strategy has gone badly wrong recently because they have lost the Latino support that they had cultivated under Bush.

I agree however they won a House majority so they're clearly doing something right.