Options
Cooper & Burnham camps and the "New Labour Taliban" term
Inspiration
Posts: 62,706 Forum Member
✭✭
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/andy-burnham/11673954/Labour-leadership-contest-Cooper-and-Burnham-camps-declare-death-of-Taliban-New-Labour.html
Oh dear.
Regardless of what some may think of new labour.. the most successful period for the party and the only time Labour have won elections in 41 years... some are determine to burn their association with that period.
So out has come a term "New Labour Taliban".
Most distasteful imho and very poorly judged. Not sure what on earth they were thinking. Even if they used to the term "insurgents" it would be a little questionable.. but the use of the term "taliban" is just out of order imho. Do we really want these people running the party?
Time for Tony to make another speech and remind some of these people how successful New Labour was not just for the party but for the country as a whole.
Oh dear.
Regardless of what some may think of new labour.. the most successful period for the party and the only time Labour have won elections in 41 years... some are determine to burn their association with that period.
So out has come a term "New Labour Taliban".
Most distasteful imho and very poorly judged. Not sure what on earth they were thinking. Even if they used to the term "insurgents" it would be a little questionable.. but the use of the term "taliban" is just out of order imho. Do we really want these people running the party?
Time for Tony to make another speech and remind some of these people how successful New Labour was not just for the party but for the country as a whole.
0
Comments
Was it successful? A decade of a boom built on easy credit and lots of government borrowing, which than came crashing down as the ineffectiveness of various national financial regulators was made apparent.
Their legacy is a massive amount of public debt, public services in disarray and varying states of mediocrity, a surveillance state, a housing crisis, numerous British companies dismantled, shut down, or sold off to foreign buyers, and much more that I'm not sure anyone would consider to be "success"
Perhaps it is a new party for the Afghan elections.
I suppose it depends on how you define "success". Prior to Tony Blair labour had a very poor record when it came to winning elections.
Take the result of elections in the post war period
1945 Labour
1950 Labour 6 Years
1951 Conservative
1955 Conservative
1959 Conservative (13 years)
1964 Labour
1966 Labour (6 years)
1970 Conservative (4 years)
1974 Labour (5 years)
1979 Conservative
1983 Conservative
1987 Conservative
1992 Conservative (18 years)
1997 Labour
2001 Labour
2005 Labour ( 13 years)
2010 Conservative/Liberal Coalition ( 5 years)
2015 Conservative ( - )
Labour under Blair was it's longest continual period in power - Up to Blair the Conservatives had won more elections as well
Cant remember who was speaking about this subject but i remember hem saying that the uk as a whole were naturally conservative and would usually only elect labout after a great period of change such as 1945 when the war was almost over or under a charismatic leader such as mr blair.
Isn't this just a re-run of what Miliband aid after he became leader? WTTE "New Labour is dead".
There' s been 60-70+% majorities for centre right policies on most important issues since the 50s. Labour only got in when it offered a centrist position and some new direction when the country wanted one - jobs and homes for heroes in 45, after the depression, technological revolution in 1963 as response to an ancient looking Tory party, fudge and a quieter life in 1974, and Blairism in 1997 after Conservative disunity and economic incompetence. The policies had to look ahead , not back to the marxist dreams of Miliband's dad. Attlee built the A bomb, Wilson set MI5 on the, far left enemies within, a decade before Thatcher did., and Blair was totally acceptable to most Tory, SDP, or Liberal voters.
Labour is stuck . The electorate in England an Wales want a Blair. The party activists want another Miliband. The MPs are split down the middle. and half their vote in Scotland want a return to the days of Militant, Foot and McGahey. Cooper and Burnham have to say what it takes to win the vote - even if Cooper may realise its all nonsense.
You also have the legacy of Brown who most of the experienced contenders are stuck with - as they worked for him. Blair's failing was over-reach in foreign policy. Brown's was to spend massively,depending on the financial sector for money, without creating a modern economy, and rejecting Blair's calls for doing things more efficiently. The result was a house built on sand, no funding for Blair's foreign policy to work - even if it had been better concieved, and nothing left when the financial sector foundations crumbled. Brown's old team can't admit that,but their opponents don't have the experience to do better.
Did Labour win so many times because of being called new Labour or because ex Tory voters were not ready at the time for another 'Tory' Government so gave their votes to "New Labour" because they considered Tony Blair to be more to the right than left ?
Biggest reason given to me by people was to give the other lot a chance. (cries of please don't were not heeded)
That may have been the case in 1997 but did that same argument stand in 2001 and 2005 ?
Blair sat on the centre ground - the Tories went off to the looney right for his first two terms. There was little reason left to vote Liberal or SDP - until the Liberals veered left over Iraq, Brown then failed economically, and the Conservatives moved back towards the centre with Cameron. You need someone to look like a failure, or past it, and someone else in the centre ground to vote for. to get a change most of the time. Cameron's problem in 2010 was the UKIP vote bleeding his majority away, and Clegg claiming more of the centre ground. .This time in 2015, his problem is the same, literlaly the same people as Major had to deal with.
Presumably if The Telegraph had a story tomorrow titled "Andy Burnham ate my hamster" you'd comment how out of order that was too? ............ because being in The Torygraph it definitely would be true obviously.