h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Where does Labour go? And why have they become so unelectable? This time last year, Gordon was seen as doing a great job, his approval ratings were sky-high. Now he can't seem to do anything right.

Hmmm... well I think it is pretty straightforward.

Labour kept getting in because people felt they were wealthier than they were last time, and now they don't.

For my I cannot see anyway back for Labour, and I think they wil probably be out of power for half a generation now. It is not just that GB is useless, they don't seem to have anyone at all in the wings that I (a pretty dyed in the wool red) could ever vote for.

Millibands, Purnell, Balls, Alexander..... no , and if the Scots get independence then we oculd be stuck with perpetual Tory goernment.... great...

Now where is my passport....

<>

Opposition?

I think one reason why New Labour is becoming so unpopular is that they don't really represent anything. Natoinally, the Tories are perceived to be on the side of the wealthy, and of entrepreneurs and those who want to better themselves. Old Labour were perceived to be on the side of the common man, protecting him/her from the ravages of the market etc etc.

New Labour kinda slips between the cracks though. They don't *really* represent anyone, they're just a version of Labour that swing voters aren't scared of. As such, they don't command the loyalty of voters the way that Labour used to.

Also in Scotland, the old Labour/Tory paradigm has been demolished by devolution (due in no small part to the electoral system Labour introduced). Having the SNP as the Scottish Government means that they're no longer a minor party in Scottish terms, but still are in UK terms. It's hard to know if this means it's a 'traditional' by-election(giving the govt a bloody nose) or something different. The SNP have governed rather skilfully whilst in power, so no doubt it's some mish-mash of the two.

As a lesson in incompetence, this bye-election was breathtaking. Their candidate was their fourth (or fifth) choice, she got caught in a whopper of a lie on day one. They scheduled it for the middle of the Glasgow holidays when most workers are off to Spain leaving the 50% or so who are on Welfare behind then, in the run up to the vote, announced policies attacking people on Welfare. It really didn't help that amidst all the doom and gloom about the economy, Gordon Brown went on one of his foreign tours throwing £30 million at Palestine.

Because of all these factors, I think the result was skewed

For my two pence worth, they have become unelectable because theyhave no solutions and no vision left. When a problem arise, usually out of some misguided legislation of their own, they just pass more!

Also, they seemm to have become a group of people who tend to represent minority interests, rather than those to which the nation as a whole can aspire.

Novo

Well in practical terms, I would suggest changing to proportional representation before the next election and then going for a coalition with the Liberal Democrats.

But seriously I don't think Labour are losing on a competence issue as such. They haven't done badly with the economy, it's just that it was the last crutch that was propping them up while it was still going strong. I guess if it recovered before the next election then they might make a comeback, but I think the political pendulum has already swung.

But when I look at a lot of their policies, I have to ask: why is a Labour party doing this? Some things they've done, rightly or wrongly, have had the support of the public. But ID cards, extended detention without trial, dubious foreign wars, who actually wants this stuff? Are they trying to win the vote of IT consultants?

If Labour is looking toward gaining national security credentials, which seems to be the aim of the above, then they need to be able to show off additional numbers of police officers, not gadgets.

"Later today Mr Brown will kick off his campaign to woo back middle England by meeting with scheming, hate-filled trade unionists and agreeing to do whatever they say."

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/anal-warts-take-poll-lead-over-brown--200807251122/

Seriously, Labour's policy of out-Torying the Tory party for years has come home to roost. When even the SNP are seen as more Socialist than Labour, it's time for Labour to do some serious re-evaluation and work out what's more important - their own core values or winning votes from the Tories.

I think they're a busted flush. We had ten years of a good world economy and Labour taxed, borrowed and spent like Billy-oh. Now when money is tight, the coffers are empty and we owe a fortune. It's going to take another 10 year repair job from the Tories to get our National Debt back down. Public Services will have to take a spanking to pay for it. That £7-8billion we give to Africa each year is going to look more & more questionable.

Brown is a liability, and a socially inarticulate creep. He'd better hope he never has to stand in an identity parade when they're lookig for a serial killer, because everybody would pick him.

Glasgow East really has changed the balance, though. Until now, there was a case for dumping Brown, and trying to recover in the polls. Now there is zero chance of Labour being in power after the next election. Absolute zero.

Labour's tactics now revolve around damage limitation. They have to find a strategy that gives them a chance of getting back in in ten years time (five years is probably unrealistic).

The point above about Labour not standing for anything is well made. Perversely, Blair held things together by doing something hugely unpopular (Iraq). It gave him the superficial credentials of a conviction politician. Brown came in and promptly sold his principles several times over, eg the will-he-won't-he call an election disgrace. If you want to be despised, take a leaf out of Vile Gordon's book and be a whore on your honeymoon.

The crunch now will be whether Cameron has the balls to apply some robust Tory economics (because he'll certainly have the parliamentary headroom to do so). Thatcher couldn't have done what she did without an unelectable Labour party. Whether that fills you with dread or hope, we're there again. Once more, thanks to the worst leader Labour has ever had, the Labour party is once again absolutely unelectable.

I saw it: it was a bit of invective directed at brown. Not entirely inaccurate, mind but I imagine the mods are feeling a bit twitchy.

But the one before it was mine. I can't remember saying anything untoward.

Yeah, the other one was me.
In these days of pitiful Slant-dearth, I don't suppose that I'll hear any explanation of what was wrong with it. It was mainly only speculation about PM-shelflife of the kind the Beeb themselves are reporting this morning.
I guess I was maybe a bit more colourful about his public image and his trustworthiness, but it's a bit depressing that it got yikesed when past PM's are drawing far nastier invective elsewhere.
What's wrong with mocking the current incumbent?
The word 'current' is here used on the assunmption that, at the time you read this, Gordon Brown is still in office, having even yet failed to develop either a sense of personal dignity or some sort of vestigial awareness of the intensity of public animosity towards him. If you've skipped back a page to read the backthread, on the other hand, I do apologise for seeming out of touch. You've probably been trying to cleanse the memory from your mind, but only last week Britain was still shrouded in darkness as Gordon Brown hadn't yet resigned in craven and abject humiliation.
So long, Gordon. Your chances of a state funeral are exactly the same as your party's chances of winning the next general election.

(Oh, and by the way, You of the Incontinent Finger. If you yikes this one, then you have my sympathy, seasoned of course with utter contempt)

Well the biggest testament to how awful Brown is, is that many of us on the left are starting to think a little bit more fondly of Blair. Yeah he was scum, but at least he was a scummy winner and not a scummy loser!

FB

Speak for thyself!

I've little short of contempt for Blair and the spineless labour and Tory MPs who slavishly followed him and IDS into the aye lobby over Iraq.

Brown is pathetic and awful but Blair was wicked and a liar.


My

Tongue slightly in cheek there clive !

Interesting analysis here, free of the usual London distortions

http://www.theherald.co.uk/display.var.2410081.0.0.php?utag=30391

Sorry. I tend to be a bit over literal *

*Ask, I'll recount the staff-room story of the computer mouse, the batteries and the vibrator which typifies this not-reading people's humour well.

"Are they trying to win the vote of IT consultants?"

Well he's not getting this one !

It's not just Brown there's Balls and Blears refusing to take responsibility for their department - Harman wearing body armour to walk round her constituency, and there's Darling - half man ~ half badger and nobody's idea of a chancellor.

Glasgow East represents the absolute one-party nature of Labour in Glasgow. For those that don't know it, it's an absolute shitheap of a place. Quite possibly the most deprived area of Scotland and one that has been held in the dead grip of Labour Tammanay politics for 50 years. Labour's purpose is to keep people poor, to keep people sick, to keep people reliant on their Labour masters for the food on their tables and the roof over their heads. Labour claim they stand for eradicating poverty and tackling inequality, but it's not in their interests. Should the people of the East End suddenly develop a legal entrepreneurial spirit (as opposed to pushing all entrepreneurialism into the illegal drug trade) and start to build up their own businesses and their own wealth, they would no longer vote Labour. Labour has to keep making sure that the people feel 'not good enough' to do things like that, to be grateful for the council jobs handed down to them, etc.

But that spell has now been broken. Voters in Glasgow East were scared to vote in anybody but Labour because of their own self-interest. But Labour have managed to do such a piss-poor job in Scotland that the SNP have run rings round them. It was no accident that Salmond chose a fervent Catholic God-botherer to run in this predominately Catholic area. In Salmond, the SNP have a leader with more wit & guile than any party apparatchik Labour can put forward. He's convinced the voters of Glasgow East that the SNP can be trusted not to shaft them. If they can pull off just one or two success stories in that constituency over the next two years, they may well keep Labour out.

<>

What utter bullshit. Liquid lunch today, SWL? Shame, the Herald article was pretty interestin, could've been a stepping stone to an interesting discussion.

Here's another article about it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/26/gordonbrown.glasgoweast1


'What has Labour done for a place like this? Unemployed claimants have been halved; hundreds more have left incapacity benefit to take jobs; of 11 new schools, five are rated "excellent"; apprenticeships have soared, and tax credits make a vast difference to people's lives'

'"Ungrateful buggers don't know what we've done for them," a Labour minister harrumphed after canvassing all day. Quite so, because Labour has utterly failed - on purpose - to say whose side it's on or what it believes, so the message never reached every corner of every place that stands to benefit.'

Says more about why Labour are losing than why the SNP are winning, but I think it goes to the heart of why New Labour are screwed.