Labours Crewe Campaign

[Haller]

Pretty average by-election result for a party mid-way through their 3rd term with a big economic downturn happening. The Labour vote held up well, just over 30%.

It's normal for a government to lose a mid-term by-election. It's what the Liberals/SDP/Lib Dems have depended on for the last 35 years.

What's different here is that it's the main opposition party who are winning the anti-government vote. This isn't normal. This happens when the opposition is in with a good chance of winning a general election. It's a serious result.

 

[rover07]

No its not good for Labour but there is time for things to change.

With Boris in London there will be probably be a right royal fuck-up by the tories.

 

[agricola]

No its not good for Labour but there is time for things to change.

With Boris in London there will be probably be a right royal fuck-up by the tories.

When you are relying on the other lot to fuck up, it usually means you yourself are beyond hope.

 

[JHE]

Pretty average by-election result for a party mid-way through their 3rd term with a big economic downturn happening. The Labour vote held up well, just over 30%

No. You're kidding yourself, Rover. It's not pretty average at all.

The Labour vote did not hold up well. It was down 18 percentage points on the Crewe result in the last general election. 30% only looks good when compared with the miserable 25% support for Labour nationally shown in some polls.

Crewe was considered a safe Labour seat. Its majority has been overturned and been replaced by an (almost) 8,000 majority for the Tories.

 

[tbaldwin]

Whose the real toff in all this?

An incredibly stupid campaign. Desperate and Dishonest tactics......

 

[lewislewis]

The thing is the Labour party will chose to (wrongly) interperet this as follows:

Brown = Old Labour = Failure. Therefore, we need a return to even more extreme Blairism than before.

Correct analysis.

They need a proper 'Old Labour' style direction to reverse the onslaught of marketisation that Blair & Brown carried out.

The sad thing is is that Thatcherite New Labourism is going to be replaced by the same thing with a new branding and a different party logo under Cameron.

 

[tbaldwin]

Correct analysis.

They need a proper 'Old Labour' style direction to reverse the onslaught of marketisation that Blair & Brown carried out.

The sad thing is is that Thatcherite New Labourism is going to be replaced by the same thing with a new branding and a different party logo under Cameron.

I dont think you could get much more old labour than dunwoody....
Old Labour is not the answer here. People are fed up with New Labour cos they have failed to deliver. They got fed up with Old Labour a lot quicker because they were worse, not better.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

The sad thing is is that Thatcherite New Labourism is going to be replaced by the same thing with a new branding and a different party logo under Cameron.

It could get a whole lot worse with people like me refusing to vote because each party turns the stomach at least on the national stage.

This will leave the way open for extremists to mop up those who are disatissfied but do still vote.

 

[STFC]

No its not good for Labour but there is time for things to change.

With Boris in London there will be probably be a right royal fuck-up by the tories.

"Today, the tide has turned. We are destroying them."

"They are going to surrender or be burned in their tanks. They will surrender, it is they who will surrender."

 

[gosub]

With a distinct lack of surprise, the Tories win:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7415362.stm

Tough choice for Brown now - whether to hope things get better and delay an election (while risking an absolute wipeout if it doesnt) or call one now and hope to galvanize people into action.

They literally can't afford an election why they strung people along with the election that never was last year gawd knows.
Next year looks bad as well, the council seats up for grabs the previous two times were contested at the same time as a general election. I suppose having council/euro and general election on the same day may allow them best use of their scant resources, otherwise if just council/euro then a lower turn out and another kicking. Not that it bothers me, I posted last year I didn't know who Labour represent.

 

[Jografer]

It could get a whole lot worse with people like me refusing to vote because each party turns the stomach at least on the national stage.

..err, you're a tory voter... or is history being airbrushed instantaneously these days....

 

[KeyboardJockey]

..err, you're a tory voter... or is history being airbrushed instantaneously these days....

I'm not a Tory in the sense that I would become a member or anything like that. Its just that I voted Tory to remove an incumbent politician who was becoming overmighty and was out of step with what many including myself felt that London needed. London needed a change and sadly the only person who gave that feeling of change was Boris.

Can't see myself voting Tory at a GE though.

 

[Haller]

I'm not a Tory in the sense that I would become a member or anything like that. Its just that I voted Tory to remove an incumbent politician who was becoming overmighty and was out of step with what many including myself felt that London needed. London needed a change and sadly the only person who gave that feeling of change was Boris.

There's a large section of the electorate using the same argument in relation to Cameron.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

There's a large section of the electorate using the same argument in relation to Cameron.

Which is scary really. I don't want the Tories in national Govt but neither do I want the alternatives.

I want the NONE OF THE ABOVE party

 

[agricola]

They literally can't afford an election why they strung people along with the election that never was last year gawd knows.
Next year looks bad as well, the council seats up for grabs the previous two times were contested at the same time as a general election. I suppose having council/euro and general election on the same day may allow them best use of their scant resources, otherwise if just council/euro then a lower turn out and another kicking. Not that it bothers me, I posted last year I didn't know who Labour represent.

The thing is that its fairly clear that they are not as unpopular as they could be - should this continue (and it might, indeed it might even get worse given the financial situation or one or two more acts of God) for the next two years until Gordon has to call an election, with him clinging on to power desperately, the urge to kick them out everywhere will be overwhelming. They could get absolutely blitzed, as bad as the old Liberals did between 1920 and 1935.

As for their financial situation, is that really going to get better anytime soon? Unless they manage to sneak in taxpayer funding for political parties - which might get cross-party support (albeit it would be vehemently opposed by nearly everyone else) - it isnt going to get better. They could easily go bankrupt before two years are up.

 

[Haller]

Old Labour is not the answer here. People are fed up with New Labour cos they have failed to deliver. They got fed up with Old Labour a lot quicker because they were worse, not better.

It depends on what you mean by Old Labour. My understanding of the term is in relation to the social democratic tradition within the party, and I'm not convinced that the electorate ever turned decisively away from it. They turned away from a Labour Party that was seen as being dominated by Bennite ideas, but the Old Labour of Callaghan, Jenkins et al retained substantial support.

When Brown started talking about Tony Crosland, it fuelled the idea that he might be part of that current. Turned out he was more Blairite than Croslandite.

 

[tbaldwin]

In many respects Old Labour were far to the right of New Labour.

 

[lewislewis]

I dont think you could get much more old labour than dunwoody....
Old Labour is not the answer here. People are fed up with New Labour cos they have failed to deliver. They got fed up with Old Labour a lot quicker because they were worse, not better.

Gwyneth or Tamsin?

Gwyneth Dunwoody was on the right of the Labour party. Didn't she lead the 'modernisation' of the Labour party and expelling Militant etc?

I was talking about bringing back the policies people associate with the term 'Old Labour'.

I don't care that much anyway, Cameron's already won.

 

[gosub]

The thing is that its fairly clear that they are not as unpopular as they could be - should this continue (and it might, indeed it might even get worse given the financial situation or one or two more acts of God) for the next two years until Gordon has to call an election, with him clinging on to power desperately, the urge to kick them out everywhere will be overwhelming. They could get absolutely blitzed, as bad as the old Liberals did between 1920 and 1935.

As for their financial situation, is that really going to get better anytime soon? Unless they manage to sneak in taxpayer funding for political parties - which might get cross-party support (albeit it would be vehemently opposed by nearly everyone else) - it isnt going to get better. They could easily go bankrupt before two years are up.

The worsening economic situation was for me the explanation for why he wanted out of Number 11 and the election that never was, posturing. Taxpayer funding has got to be on the agenda but they are now negotiating from a position of weakness.


Back to national finances I don't think they are helping themselves by pointing to worst in history examples (that happened under the tories) and saying it is not as bad. Because things are definitely going to get worse before they get better -repossessions and true jobless (unemployed + sick benefit) could pass previous records and everybody will know they are record levels. Whether or not it gets that bad I don't know yet. I hope not. But I think the key is going to come down to the same as the anaysis for policy report I'm working on for my company :global oil storage capacity.

 

[tbaldwin]

Gwyneth or Tamsin?

Gwyneth Dunwoody was on the right of the Labour party. Didn't she lead the 'modernisation' of the Labour party and expelling Militant etc?

I was talking about bringing back the policies people associate with the term 'Old Labour'.

I don't care that much anyway, Cameron's already won.

What policies are those? building shit housing,high inflation and unemployment. Corruption,Talking about taxing the rich till the pips squeak? Talking about getting rid of the House of Lords.......
If People wanted more of that i think hot air balloons would be more popular.

 

[JHE]

In many respects Old Labour were far to the right of New Labour.

That's a rather surprising thing to read - even here.

I'd like to understand how you can say that, so I'll have a go.

1. Old Lab was generally quite conservative on the constitution. NuLab has not been. I suppose you could just about call that less right-wing.

2. NuLab has been much more sympathetic to the claims to equality made by gay people. NuLab governments have been quite gay-friendly. I suppose you could call that less right-wing, though I wouldn't.

3. Um... dunno... help me out here.


On the other hand, NuLab has abandoned earlier social democratic ideas about controlling the economy, extending public ownership and reducing the differences in wealth and income. That's why most people take the view opposite to yours and see NuLab as more right-wing than (not very left-wing) Old Lab.

 

[Das Uberdog]

Also, saying that people got sick of Old Labour 'sooner' than New Labour is a load of phoney baloney.

You said that a few posts back, you did.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

In many respects Old Labour were far to the right of New Labour.

Complex subject, but Dunwoody was on the right of the "old" party.

Totally pro war and pro ID cards, that nasty authoritarian streak that makes them so disgusting.

There is no "old" or "new" labour anyhow. The ballot says "Labour". The "old / new" thing is now a blag for party members and supporters who cant take responsibility for what this corrupt, lying, authoritarian and inept party have done.

 

[Fruitloop]

Well, in terms of authoritarianism OL and NL are pretty much the same - they both have a rather Leninist tendency to interfere in society and then belabour (ha!) their electorate with punishments when the legislative interference fails to have the desired effect. Economically though there is no doubt that NL are way to the right of their predecessors.

 

[lewislewis]

What policies are those? building shit housing,high inflation and unemployment. Corruption,Talking about taxing the rich till the pips squeak? Talking about getting rid of the House of Lords.......
If People wanted more of that i think hot air balloons would be more popular.

I don't think people associate all of those things with the term 'Old Labour' but social housing, public services under public ownership, progressive taxation, still have a certain resonance amongst the majority of people.

 

[Haller]

Because things are definitely going to get worse before they get better -repossessions and true jobless (unemployed + sick benefit) could pass previous records and everybody will know they are record levels. Whether or not it gets that bad I don't know yet. I hope not. But I think the key is going to come down to the same as the anaysis for policy report I'm working on for my company :global oil storage capacity.

I suspect the real crash is going to be a couple of years off yet. The current response of western governments - essentially, printing money - could postpone the crisis. And a victory for Obama in November may well reinvigorate the US economy for a while.

 

[Haller]

Well, in terms of authoritarianism OL and NL are pretty much the same - they both have a rather Leninist tendency to interfere in society and then belabour (ha!) their electorate with punishments when the legislative interference fails to have the desired effect. Economically though there is no doubt that NL are way to the right of their predecessors.

What's changed is that the government has much less control over the economy than it used to have. So all that authoritarian tendency has spilled out into social control.

 

[KeyboardJockey]

That's a rather surprising thing to read - even here.

I'd like to understand how you can say that, so I'll have a go.

1. Old Lab was generally quite conservative on the constitution. NuLab has not been. I suppose you could just about call that less right-wing.

2. NuLab has been much more sympathetic to the claims to equality made by gay people. NuLab governments have been quite gay-friendly. I suppose you could call that less right-wing, though I wouldn't.

3. Um... dunno... help me out here.


On the other hand, NuLab has abandoned earlier social democratic ideas about controlling the economy, extending public ownership and reducing the differences in wealth and income. That's why most people take the view opposite to yours and see NuLab as more right-wing than (not very left-wing) Old Lab.

Good point. NL are quite rightly socially more progressive but has more in common with Thatcherism than the Labour Party of Callaghan and before.

 

[tbaldwin]

That's a rather surprising thing to read - even here.

I'd like to understand how you can say that, so I'll have a go.

1. Old Lab was generally quite conservative on the constitution. NuLab has not been. I suppose you could just about call that less right-wing.

2. NuLab has been much more sympathetic to the claims to equality made by gay people. NuLab governments have been quite gay-friendly. I suppose you could call that less right-wing, though I wouldn't.

3. Um... dunno... help me out here.


On the other hand, NuLab has abandoned earlier social democratic ideas about controlling the economy, extending public ownership and reducing the differences in wealth and income. That's why most people take the view opposite to yours and see NuLab as more right-wing than (not very left-wing) Old Lab.

1 Yes. House of Lords reform,Devolution to name 2.
2 Also true...
3 Massive increases in spending on health and education..More nurses, more teachers that sort of thing.

4 NL have been shit on renationalisation etc but Old Labour were shit in the way they nationalised things which worked out much better for the bosses than the workers.

A Lot of NL were former members of the Bennite Left.. Unlike him they saw the need to put ideas into action and saw NL as the best way of doing it.
I am not a fan but i do think they were certainly no worse than old labour.

 

[tbaldwin]

Good point. NL are quite rightly socially more progressive but has more in common with Thatcherism than the Labour Party of Callaghan and before.

Callaghan did he double spending on health and education? Old Labour never got re-elected for a reason. The reason is they let down the people who had faith in them....