Should Labour move further towards the left wing?

[Marilyn]

You're right. The true Working Class are tories at heart IMO, but without the money.

And you still haven't fixed your 'e' key (which only sticks when followed by the spacebar) .. give your keyboard a thump from me. :-)

The Right To Buy? Sunday Shopping? Strong Defence? The truth the Tories hav liberated us.
Nothing working-class about the labour party
WORKING-CLASS?
TONY BLAIR WENT TO SCOTLAND’S VERSION OF ETON.
TONY BENN=LORD ANTHONY WEDGEWOOD BENN, VISCOUNT STANSGATE.

WHAT’S LABOUR GOT TO DO WITH THE WORKING-CLASS?

The myth that the Labour Party is the “Party of the Working-Class”. it is not, it does not reflect the feelings of Working-Class people. Most Working-Class people are:


Against Immigration.
For a Strong Defence.
For Nuclear Weapons.
For Capital Punishment.

The Labour Party was set up by the Fabian Party in Victorian times an extremely posh do-gooders society heavily populated by Bohemian Literary types, not by Working-class people.

[Citizen67]

You're right. The true Working Class are tories at heart IMO, but without the money.

And you still haven't fixed your 'e' key (which only sticks when followed by the spacebar) .. give your keyboard a thump from me. :-)

I'v tried that but it doesn't seem to work

[Citizen67]

Labour NEVER betrayed the working class. The tories betrayed the working class and the Lib Dems have certainly destroyed the Working class. Labour are the only (major) party that represents the working class truelly. BNP and UKIP are just hiding their racism under the resentment of the british population!

schools:
We got now academies, one in eight of all public sector schools, usually failing schools in Labour controlled local councils, 1/3 of schools in one Labour controlled area hav opted for Academy status despite the obstacles put in their way by the local Labour council. It is estimated that one in eight figure will become 1 in four by Christmas Time!

Free schools: although these will be started by middle-class people to begin with, it will be the working-class that will be sending their children to those schools a few years from now, people like my nephew.

[paralreg]

Should Labour move further towards the left wing?

No! It should stay where it is and simply use the name Conservative.

[Citizen67]

No, it should definitely turn Left and keep going all the way to oblivion!

[Red Rackham]

I cannot believe we have so few Labour supporters here.

I was a fully paid up card carrying member of the Labour party, but after a decade of Blair I feel conned which is why for the first time in my life I voted Tory at the the election last year and have since become a member of UKIP.

[paralreg]

Speaking as a Labour supporter and member, I find both our left and right wings tiresome.

We should move to the left on some issues. Immigration for example; we shouldn't pander to the Mail and other right-wing outlets of hatred, but rather make the case for a compassionate immigration policy which doesn't, for example, result in shameful episodes like this one.

Equally, we shouldn't be ashamed of supporting the poor and unemployed. As human as anyone else, these people need defending against the excesses of a social and economic system which would show them little regard were it not for the protective shield of the state - and Labour is the only one who will do so.

But at the same time we need not nationalise everything and we need not reject the free market. Though the market can fail at times and though it discriminates against some, that is no reason for it to not exist; that is simply a reason for the state's existence, to ensure its continued functioning and to make sure it works in the interests of all in society rather than simply a few.

When I see Blair praising the coalition and insisting that we should be sacrificing ourselves to the almighty gods of deficit reduction, I cringe. The same way I react to Michael Meacher telling us that we should reject nuclear power or that we should be bashing bankers.

There is a middle ground.

I have waited over a year to read a post of this nature, simplicity, and importance.
What Labour needs to do is to return to a socialist basis, not the old we are left so were are right bull, but a societal socialism that takes the caring and compassionate aspects of socialism and melds them with the capital driven aspects of our societies. No one side is more or less important than the other. Once both realise this and come to the middle ground and work together for Britain's future we may actually have one,

[Citizen67]

Paralreg, hav you ever checked out "Kibbutzes"? i lived on one as a youth and young man and they really impressed me, a combination of capitalism and socialism. they create their own wealth through citrus fruit, farming and small factories, ( i worked in a sock factory and a bucket factory) then they distribute the wealth fairly amongst the members, build communal schools, dining rooms, housing, clinics, even small things like swimming pools, and they ar free from the state, not run by the state and a wonderful environment to bring up children. I wish they had them here.

[paralreg]

Paralreg, hav you ever checked out "Kibbutzes"? i lived on one as a youth and young man and they really impressed me, a combination of capitalism and socialism. they create their own wealth through citrus fruit, farming and small factories, ( i worked in a sock factory and a bucket factory) then they distribute the wealth fairly amongst the members, build communal schools, dining rooms, housing, clinics, even small things like swimming pools, and they ar free from the state, not run by the state and a wonderful environment to bring up children. I wish they had them here.

Whilst I can see the advantages of this idea I do not see the the long established capitalist forces within our 21st century world being willing to switch over to it.
I suppose the concept may work today if the product of the kibbutz in today's case was profit and the kibbutz was international because like Communism I feel that a kibbutz nation could not work if it was the only one, although it would probably stand a better chance than communism ever had to succeed. In today's world we seem locked into a cycle of wealthy nation = poor people or the exact opposite never any balance between the two. This creates greed, envy and anger in the peoples of the world in general (look to Syria and Libya etc now) and is what causes most of the war and death around the world which in turn generates billions of pounds/ dollars/euros of drain on any and every nations core wealth. I do honestly believe that if we can improve the well-being of people globally the costs of doing so and maintaining it would be many times less than the cost of slaughtering people. I am not a pacifist but I do feel we use war as rather more of a first option action rather than a last because we are equipped for better to handle war, than we are for peace.
For today's times I feel we need a government that is population focused, that also ensures that the country's earners, our capitalists, are both governed and protected, also by working as a team with them to ensure we get the best for and from society.

[rjt]

Speaking as a Labour supporter and member, I find both our left and right wings tiresome.

We should move to the left on some issues. Immigration for example; we shouldn't pander to the Mail and other right-wing outlets of hatred, but rather make the case for a compassionate immigration policy which doesn't, for example, result in shameful episodes like this one.

Equally, we shouldn't be ashamed of supporting the poor and unemployed. As human as anyone else, these people need defending against the excesses of a social and economic system which would show them little regard were it not for the protective shield of the state - and Labour is the only one who will do so.

But at the same time we need not nationalise everything and we need not reject the free market. Though the market can fail at times and though it discriminates against some, that is no reason for it to not exist; that is simply a reason for the state's existence, to ensure its continued functioning and to make sure it works in the interests of all in society rather than simply a few.

When I see Blair praising the coalition and insisting that we should be sacrificing ourselves to the almighty gods of deficit reduction, I cringe. The same way I react to Michael Meacher telling us that we should reject nuclear power or that we should be bashing bankers.

There is a middle ground.

I think a lot of people would agree with a lot of what you say here, be they Labour supporters or not. I would say to you though that whilst all should not be sacrificed in the name of deficit reduction a country has no credibility if its public finances are not sound. Radical cuts do need to be made and there is little that can be left sacred. The problem with governments living on borrowed money is that you borrow from peter to pay paul and then pick both their pockets to pay it back, i.e cuts and taxation. People dont care for it, I say if this government can start to re-balance the books it deserves praise not censure but I doubt they will be any more able to do it than Labour would be.