Labour Party, Lib Dem Party - where to now.

There was a post on another forum about 'that note' from the Treasury which said all of the things that I'd suspected in that a]it was a joke and something that happens in a lot of countries when Governments change; usually there's a gentlemans agreement that it will be kept as 'a joke' but not in this case. The Minister who picked it up first of all only stayed in office for a short time and left under a cloud [not that that matters really] and didn't get 'the joke' as it's a comment usually made by civil servants whenever a minister asks for money. Cameron wouldn't have 'kept it in his pocket at all times' and the woman in the audience who asked the question would have been a plant. I do think it's all very underhand and shabby, although [as he admits] it was a silly thing to do under the circumstances. I think a lot of people are now quite scared that the LibDems won't have any influence in Parliament. The S.O. was talking to someone yesterday who voted Conservative because he'd had a tax cut; when the S.O. pointed out that it was, in fact, Nick Clegg that was responsible, he sratched his head and said 'oh yes; I'd forgotten that'. I do wish [and I'm saying this on a thread about Labour and the LibDems] that I wish I could get the point across that, if this Government does good things that I agree with I will be pleased and support them for that and that things I don't agree with are not 'because it's a Tory policy/idea' but because I think it's bad for the country and it's people. It was an election, not a referendum and nothing is cast in stone; polices that are unjust can still be faught against..not for the sake of doing so but for the greater good of everyone. [just needed to get that off me chest].

I agree Jen.

Are we being too pessimistic?
113 seats changed hands, and 50 of those were SNP seats. Labour actually took more seats from the Tories than vice versa. The Tories took more seats from the Libdems than the Labour party did, which hopefully means that the Libdems will not trust Tories again.
The Labour party surely needs to look at the similarities between it and the SNP, rather than going for the middle ground. If Miliband hadn't cornered himself over the SNP and played into Cameron's hands, things might have been different.
Although Cameron wanted the Union to remain, ever since the referendum he has treated the SNP as if they are not part of the Union.

Very about DJ ruling himself out

The S.O. said that he saw Liz Kendall and was very impressed by her. Pity about Dan Jarvis.

Dan Jarvis has said he will not stand for the leadership.

Good point. I think I heard someone, possibly a tory on tv say exactly the same thing.
I think that that actually frightens some Labour MPs actually. They are rather scared to tackle aspirations as a concept.

Crumbs, so many good posts and I only went over to my mothers for an hour or so!

I shall miss something, I know I will but for starters Eloethan I have always felt Chukka Umuna was a politicians politician not a peoples politician. I like what I have seen of Liz Kendall but that is not a lot. I would also like to know more about Dan Jarvis.

soontobe I have felt for some time that while "everyone" was working-class after the war "everyone" does not feel that way now. People are quite aspirational in a way that, in my parents generation, security was the most important thing as they had come from a period with no NHS, no NI and a war. I don't know what difference this makes but I feel it must mean what the Labour Party offer, even though it has to remain socialist should be less like the fighting socialism of the post war era but one that recognises the aspirations and doesn't make them out to be a bad thing.

*whitewave Sun 10-May-15 15:12:33
soon don't be mistaken there is not lean to the right*

Not sure. Conservatives won[some, and lost some, cant remember exact figures] seats from Labour, even after they had been in the coalition for 5 years. That is almost unheard of?

Someone said to me [not someone scottish as far as I know], that possible SNP voters did not choose Labour, because Labour said that they would not go into government with them. So the possible SNP voters thought that they may as well vote SNP.

I think that one of the main differences between Labour and the Liberals, is that the liberals have a liberal outlook in general about life. All aspects of life.
Also Labour like to align themselves with "the working man", which, if I am rightly, liberals do not much mention.

GrannyTwice I was trying to remember the name of the politician that John Mann talked about in the Politics programme today - thanks: you've reminded me it was Dan Jarvis. I can't say his name rings a bell but I'm going to do some research on him.

I don't like Chukka Umuna - I've always found him very insipid on Question Time, reluctant to give a straight answer (yes, I know that's not unusual!), not very interesting or inspiring and a rather cold fish. Other than the fact that he is black, I don't know what else he has in common with Barack Obama and I guess if they both had white skin nobody would mention a similarity.

Well re the new leader, I've been on MN and Dan Jarvis is doing well. Good back story - may be DM proof. There are some clearly planted posts saying that Chukka is the one the Tories most fear which means that they have a terrible photo of him eating something or other ready to wheel out at the appropriate time

Yes Anya about EMs ruling out of working with the SNP - I disliked all that rhetoric about the illegitimacy of the SNP and wonder how many people it might have encouraged to vote SNP - it would have me. -- but then I'm an awkward so and so--

What a relief to read a balanced discussion (almost ) without slings and arrows!

Yes G2 the reasons are many and complex. I also feel that Ed Milliband further alienated the Scottish voters by the way he ruled out working with the SNP. It was as if he dismissed them completely.

Policially England is divided I think Nightowl

The North holds far more to its traditional working class roots than does the South, and the Midlands is also becoming more conservative, both 'c' and 'C'.

I was confused by the rise of the right in Wales

I can fully sympathise with that point of view Anya.

I think the English, though perhaps more conservative (with a small c) that the Scots, are not completely stupid, and do like to know what their parties stand for. They have certainly always known what the Conservative Party stands for, but it's been more difficult to work out what the ever shifting principles of the Labour/ Lib-Social-Dems (whatever they have called themselves) are, and people tend to find security in certainty.

Anya - I also think there was some resentment at being taken for granted - one Labour Party member said they were treated like a branch office and not an equal partner

eloathan yes but there must be an answer! We have always lived with the Tory press, and at least social media will mean that an alternative voice can be heard. The young voter in particular uses this far more than we do.

Never the less because the right wing is likely to stay in power for some time that does not negate our arguments - to stay quiet is to abrogate our responsibilities towards future generations.

Not a stupid question Nightowl but I have no answer.

One of the reasons that Labour failed to win in Scotland, where they could previously have counted on seats, is because many Scots saw them as too right wing.

whitewave Of course, you're right that it is very dangerous to allow a one party state to develop, but to my mind it's a very real prospect if Scotland leaves the union.

We have a predominantly right wing media and, governments who are increasingly either bullied by, or in thrall to, the finance sector, multinational companies and very rich and powerful indivuals. As far as I can see, this isn't going to change any time soon.

A substantial proportion of the population relies on newspapers (and often just their headlines) to aid them in forming their opinions, and most of these newspapers are owned by those whose best interests are served by the Conservative Party. . As Jane Martinson said in the Guardian yesterday:

"........The Labour Party manifesto was the only one to vow to protect media plurality and implement the Leveson report's recommendations for press regulation ....."

"..What does seem undeniable is that when Murdoch berated his editors for failing to do enough to secure a Cameron victory earlier this year he was motivated by at least a degree of self-interest."

"With a party in power whose only manifesto pledge on the media was to freeze the BBC's licence fee, Murdoch and his UK executives can rest assured that they can do business again".

Although I'm not a huge fan of Alan Johnson, he also made some good wrote a good comments in an article in the Guardian yesterday:

"We seemed to have no effective riposte to Cameron's successful distortion of our economic record in government. Thus, a succession of Tory ministers were allowed to describe the global banking crisis as "Labour's recession" and to refer to the economy contracting. There was no rebuttal pointing out the decent levels of growth being recorded before George Osborne choked off the recovery through his vainglorious emergency budget in June 2010. Nick Clegg's ludicrous comparison between the bankrupt Greek economy and our own also seemed to pass without question."

I liked Miliband but I think we needed a "tough nut" to firmly put down the notion that Labour was responsible for an economic crisis which emanated from the very financial institutions that are the allies and primary donors to the Conservative Party.

This is probably a stupid question but can someone tell me, if the Labour Party move even further to the centre, and the LibDems regroup, what will be the difference between them? I genuinely can't work out why we need two centre left parties?

I agree with whoever said above (sorry can't remember now) that all parties need to work out what they actually stand for rather than what will get them elected. I'm afraid that's what turned me away from Labour in 1997, seeing TB turn the party into some kind of business and career opportunity for himself rather than a party that actually had sound principles. At least the Tories have never pretended to be anything other than the party of the rich and privileged.

Nick Clegg's resignation speech was one of the best I've heard in a long time. It came straight from the heart and he spoke eloquently about his conviction and liberalism.

He also appeared genuinely defeated in himself.

I can understand the sudden surge in party membership as those of the electorate who perhaps voted tactically or were misled by political spin merchants realised how they had been manipulated.

After all the country rewarded the Tories for being part of the coalition and yet punished the LibDems for being part of that same coalition.

Where Labour go from here I don't know, but they need a charasmatic leader who will be there to turn things around in five years time when the country is ripe for change.

soon don't be mistaken there is not lean to the right.

g2 yes one member one vote is what I understand but watch this space as we will no doubt be bombarded with information over the next few months

As regards the liberals. There are now 8 men MPs which I dont think will help them.
And personally, Paddy Ashdown never even pretended to nibble his hat. He couldnt even manage that. I did think at the time when he said that, that it was likely to come back to bite him. He will never hear the end of it.