If the Labour Party didn't exist, would anyone today invent it?

HornetSaver

westernpromise wrote: »

What's its job in a post-union, post-Communist, post-identity politics century, that can't be done by the Lib Dems?

Getting people to admit that they've ever voted for them.

HornetSaver

westernpromise wrote: »

Envy is a wicked and shameful motivation for any course of action and has been accurately identified as a sin for thousands of years.

On the other hand, we've only been anti-slavery for a couple of hundred. And even then, in many cases, we deplore it in name only.

antrobus

ous morailty is not restricted to either major political party.

MyOnlyPost wrote: »

.... The only labour leader to win an election since 1979 wasn't a socialist. ...

To be pedantic, The only Labour leader to win an election since 1974 was so chap named named Blair. Whether or not he was a 'socialist" would be a matter of opinion, he certainly claimed to be a socialist;

I am a Socialist not through reading a textbook that has caught my intellectual fancy, nor through unthinking tradition, but because I believe that, at its best, Socialism corresponds most closely to an existence that is both rational and moral.

MyOnlyPost wrote: »

...The original Labour manifesto does not appeal to modern voters and as such it is more suited to being a pressure group than a political party. ...

Do you mean the 1900 LRC manifesto, or the 1910 Labour Party manifesto?

At least the 1910 manifesto was very brief, and mainly called for the abolishment of the House of Lords and claimed that the working and middle classes were "overburdened with rates and taxes".

http://www.unionhistory.info/britainatwork/emuweb/objects/nofdigi/tuc/imagedisplay.php?irn=3000016

If the Labour Party 2020 manifesto simply called for tax cuts and dumping the Lords perhaps it might do a little better?:)

Moby

Conrad wrote: »

I think a key shift is taking place whereby hugely more people are now aspirational and though they may be poor today, they value an enterprise friendly landscape whereby they can better themselves.


Look at how many now have little side-lines such as an EBAY trading account.


Look at the shift in this country towards more high end vehicles and SUV's recently reported.


LABOUR - what does it stand for in the public mind? Welfare, hand-outs, Govt and not you the individual being the prime actor in your own life, trendy minority campaigns, the compensation culture (chasing squaddies / sueing the NHS etc), ooman rights cheats charters, defending traveller communities etc etc


They never seem to be throwing energy into the quiet hard working majority. You don't see ooman rights lawyers like Shami Chakrabarty seeking out the old lady on the council estate to champion. No, she gravitates to high profile trendy cases such as Guantanamo inmates. Why would this be, why is she never on YOUR side?


Labour is a vessel for those posh intellectuals wishing to grandstand as some sort of agitator for the glorious revolution.
Most citizens have no time for these drippy luvvies

Every cliche! included except supporting terrorists and Western Promise adds that below your post:rotfl:

antrobus

BobQ wrote: »

Whereas all the Conservatives are for is to protect the interests of the affluent few. ...

It's an opinion I suppose.

BobQ wrote: »

..But to put it another way, what does anyone want done that needs the Conservative Party to exist to get done?

Making sure that a certain Jeremy Corbyn never gets anywhere near government? That's something I'd like to see done, and I'm prepared to consider voting for a party that will get it done.:)

Moby

kabayiri wrote: »

The Conservatives know their target market, and they probably havent changed that much.

But what of the target Labour voter?

Unions are a shadow of what they once were. The idea of a job for life seems increasingly remote for the young now.

The nature of labour and the role of people in work itself could come under threat.

What does Labour have to sell to these future voters?

Things change you know. Workers rights could become a very live issue again if we hard Brexit without a trade deal. Who will protect the workers then?

antrobus

BobQ wrote: »

Corbyn and the modern militants that support him have nothing to offer....

Apparently these 'modern militants' amount to 60% of the party membership/supporter base. If they have 'nothing to offer' doesn't that mean that

BobQ wrote: »

..Labour could enable a more moral approach to society .

Enabling a more moral approach to society, requires an economy capable of funding it. Some of us look back at what car-crash Brown achieved and don't want to see that happen again, and have therefore concluded that Labour, rather than enabling a "more moral approach to society", has actually made it very difficult.

antrobus

HornetSaver wrote: »

On the other hand, we've only been anti-slavery for a couple of hundred. ...

Slavery was abolished in the UK as a result of the Norman conquest. So a bit more like a thousand years.

http://www.historytoday.com/marc-morris/normans-and-slavery-breaking-bonds

Certainly, there was a European inspired slave trade that began in the 16thC, expanded in the 18thC. There was a widespread movement Britain against this slave trade which resulted in the Slave Trade Act 1807 and the Slavery Abolition Act 1833. After which, we deployed the Royal Navy to frustrate the slave trade, and I think we even bribed the likes of Portugal to ban slavery.

HornetSaver wrote: »

..And even then, in many cases, we deplore it in name only.

Is the Modern Slavery Act 2015 not up to the job in some way?

westernpromise

Moby wrote: »

Things change you know. Workers rights could become a very live issue again if we hard Brexit without a trade deal. Who will protect the workers then?

Certainly not the Labour Party. Khorbiyn has said he doesn't agree with any cap on immigration. He thinks it should be unlimited. See the Labour Party's record on immigration when in power for the evidence that this attitude is agreed on by all the Labour Party.

So on protecting workers, that's a fail.

steampowered

westernpromise wrote: »

So if not those things, what do we need Labour for? What's its job in a post-union, post-Communist, post-identity politics century, that can't be done by the Lib Dems?

I think you could say this about any of the major UK political parties to be honest.

The actual policy difference between all of the major political parties is now very small.

The example you gave of the Conservatives passing gay marriage is a great example of how there aren't many big differences on social issues.

I would add the fact that the Conservatives have spent more than Labour planned, and borrowed more money than the last Labour government did, to illustrate that there is not much difference between the two parties on economic issues.

When you look at history, change seems to come about through gradual change in people's opinions which all political parties are then forced to follow. It rarely comes about of supporting one political party over another. Political parties are always pulled in the direction of their electorate.