Change of name for Labour.

Well I am very much enjoying the belated realisation by the media that Rachel Reeves was not an Economist at HBOS as per her CV but actually a lesser role in some sort of customer complaints department where she was “useless” according to several colleagues. Explains a lot.

Rather Downtown Abby !

Imo people can’t get their heads around the fact that people that don’t speak with public school accents are capable of running the country

In just a few months how can a new government be judged as
proving to be lamentably incapable of running the country

100% spot on M0nica you've summed it up perfectly.

Cupidinours

Agreed, this shower are useless, people like Mo Mowlam were thoroughly decent and did the job to the best of their ability. They were honest and trustworthy. I despair when I look at ‘our leaders’, the likes of Starmer, Lammy, Cooper. Unfortunately we have another 5 years of this.

But, the alternative were no better - and spent the last 5 years of their time in power proudly showing us just how incompetent and venal they could be.

As for party names, that is mere persiflage. Our political partys have clear names thaat everyone is familiar with and which they have had, literally, for at least the last 100 years. Changing them would be like re-arrangng the deckchairs ont the Titanic.

What is more concerning is that our current government run by a lawyer, who has behind him a successful career running one of the key legal entities in the country, is proving to be lamentably incapable of running the country and, despite a large salary and considerable wealth is seen to be as venal and willing to accept freebies as any Conservative back bencher.

or maybe some knew so much in the run up to the election which is why they didn't vote for them Annie.

In just a few months some know so much

Agreed, this shower are useless, people like Mo Mowlam were thoroughly decent and did the job to the best of their ability. They were honest and trustworthy. I despair when I look at ‘our leaders’, the likes of Starmer, Lammy, Cooper. Unfortunately we have another 5 years of this.

Yes and there is still poverty too. And gone are the days when one income could support a family. But being "centrist" means they daren't tax the wealthiest it seems.

Of course manufacturing jobs have gone, but low paid jobs still exist and the people doing those jobs, the ones that were oh so necessary during the pandemic, they need a political party that wants to improve their lives, and allow them to live with dignity and enjoyment.

I think both Labour and the Conservatives realised a long time ago that they both needed to be fairly "central" to gain votes - as opposed to left wing or right wing. So they all seem pretty much the same now! There are perhaps more aristocrats in the Conservative party though, who could, arguably, be a bit out of touch. But it seems labour are out of touch as well! And yes the days of mines and terrible conditions have gone so maybe the "labour" name is inappropriate. The party name is supposed to describe them isn't it? Like "liberal" "democrats". Although not sure what Conservative is supposed to mean either! Or "Tory".

We've already had "New Labour". I can't think of an appropriate name except maybe calling all of them Bullshit party 1, Bullshit party 2 and so on ha ha

Anniebach

Blair , the only labour leader to win three consecutive general
Elections.

Corbyn the worst election defeats since1935

The days of trouble at the mills, coal mines and iron works have gone

Precisely. The country and the world has changed since the early days of Labour and the party has moved with the times.

Tony Blair actually wanted to alleviate child poverty, he wanted to improve all children's lives. He introduced Sure Start.
Keir Starmer does not.
Now instead of choosing to ask people who can afford to run a car to pay a little extra, he prefers to increase bus fares.
A political leader should lead, should shape the narrative, not just do whatever the focus groups tell him.
Yes, Tony Blair made mistakes, the greatest of which was Iraq, but he genuinely seemed to care about the children and the health of this country.

Blair , the only labour leader to win three consecutive general
Elections.

Corbyn the worst election defeats since1935

The days of trouble at the mills, coal mines and iron works have gone

Political parties to get anywhere have to be electable. There are plenty of tiny parties, with no MPs dotted across the land proud of their purist devotion to their principles from which they do not deviate - and they have my every respect, but nobody votes for them.

What all those who affect to despise Tony Blair seem to forget is that he won elections and he won elections because he had policies people were prepared to vote for and so doing, kept the Conservatives out of power for 13 years.

If you want the party to campaign on purist principles that no one will vote for then you need to accept that you are voting for the party that will end up having annual conferences in the back rooms of pubs where the pure and incorruptable can talk about how Tony Blair destroyed the party, singing the praises of Jeremy Corbyn and standing in half a dozen seats and always losing their deposits.

Would a name change for any political party help? A rose by any other name and so on.

They are just another Conservative party. Obsessed with growth, not giving a toss about child poverty.

Sago

I have never been a supporter of Blair or his wife.

However at least Blair had some charisma, something Starmer is totally lacking in.

The last good Labour leader was the late John Smith, an honourable gentleman, I’m sure had he lived Labour would have had a long and successful reign.

Me too. John Smith was a real gentleman and would have made a splendid PM.

As for choosing another name, some call them Liebour.

I have never been a supporter of Blair or his wife.

However at least Blair had some charisma, something Starmer is totally lacking in.

The last good Labour leader was the late John Smith, an honourable gentleman, I’m sure had he lived Labour would have had a long and successful reign.