The Left's way forward

The S.O. said he saw an interview with Nick Clegg who said that it was the Lib/Dems that stopped the last government from changing the boundaries. I don't understand why they can change boundaries that will suit them come the next election; can someone explain the reasoning behind being allowed to do so? Given that a lot of things will happen over the next few years that [imo] will shock a lot of people I think there will be a swing to the left anyway. I'm ashamed to say, though, that I'm very out of touch politics wise these days and really must stay more in touch with what's happening.

Anti -austerity is partially how/why Greece is in the state it is in today and was one of the reasons( for the first time in my life) I did not vote Labour in the last election. I feared that there would be a massive increase of public sector jobs, no control over benefits, public spending and together with the unions hold on Ed Milliband would (imo) have been a recipe for disaster and sent the country on a collision course to bankruptcy.

I agree with the other points made ie, NHS, living wage etc but we must bear in mind that if manufacturers in the Uk are forced into paying higher wages we must be prepared for the higher prices of goods and services.

Reintroduce the ideals of the welfare state

Reject the economics of the right by arguing for a Keynesian economic policy

Get an independent body to work out a living wage and pass a law.

Yes accessible learning from O to 22 .

I can certainly go with those first three GG and I think that's a really good point you've raised - the fewer words the better. Let's still to those basics that all ends of the spectrum can relate to.

Not sure what you intend by the fourth point.

sorry WW I didn't say we can't debate a way forward....did I? I thought I said I'm not sure there is a way forward - meaning we can debate but I'm not sure the time is ripe, yet, for a consensus to go forward together.

OK let me think.

No more austerity.

Pay a living wage.

Nationalise the NHS.

Did anyone see Victoria Derbyshire this morning? I watched because she had all four candidates on and an audience of Labour voters, ex Labour voters and possible Labour voters. The audience asked some interesting questions and made some interesting points but the four candidates just sounded the same old, same old. Many of the audience sounded as I feel - just sad.

The BBC had a political correspondent there and he said that the candidates needed their Clause 4 moment. He seemed to mean that you need something that was easily recognisable. The candidates were each asked for their Clause 4 statement but not a one came out with anything you could hang your hat on.

When I look at Nicola Sturgeon, whatever I may think about the SNP I hear:

* She believes in Social Democracy
* She is anti-austerity
* She believes in independence for Scotland.

That allows me to know - if I were in an area where I could vote SNP - what I believe I am voting for.

If I was to put forward what I want the party I vote for to stand for it would be:

* They believe in a living wage and a living pension
* They believe in accessible learning from birth to 22
* They believe in care, including medical care, free at the point of delivery from birth to death.
* The believe in a more federal system for the UK

Each of those deserves a lecture in its own right but whatever Labour want to offer they must be able to put it into as few a words as possible. Overall, in Scotland, I imagine Independence would identify the SNP. Overall if Labour is to be identified by one of those I would suggest federalism - not because it highest on my list, I would still expect the others, but because it would be a strong differential and I think it would be attractive to many.

What would your simple phrases be - shall we say a maximum of four with the one you would want pushed to the fore identified.

OK anya accepting your view that we must heal the rifts. Then how do we do that without a debate about the way forward? And if there is to be a debate then there will naturally be disagreement, and argument until a common and acceptable plateform is reached.

If it wants to be electable, go quite far right.
If it wants to stick to a lot of it's ideals, and not be bothered about being electable, go further left than Ed Miliband.

In one way this forum is a microcosm of society.

And stop jumping on party members with different views

Not what I'm saying at all

We need to heal the rifts within the party and present a united front to the electorate. One thing the SNP really had right was they were all singing off the same hymn sheet.

Blimey anya what are you saying? That we just drift along with no debate or decision?

I'm not sure there is a way forward as there is such a wide range of irreconcilable views within the party. There are those of us who are variously to the left of centre and those with a more 'traditional' belief. But it's not true that more moderate socialists admired Blair as seems to be a common belief.

The Blair government was not the first to introduce market forces in to the NHS. The Thatcher government introduced GP Fundholding which allowed GPs to spend their budget in a variety of entrepreneurial ways. There was of course CCT when we saw hotel services being contracted out way before Tony Blair.

Oh just what we need, hundreds of thousands more public sector workers. I don't think so.

Agreed. That is the most important thing.

The next for me would be renationalising of utilities, including the railways.

No need to pay for it; just do not renew a franchise when it comes up for sale.

It's incredible how much of our infrastructure is in the hands of foreign owners.

Here is my first argument.

It was wrong for the Blair government to introduce market forces into the NHS. A future government of the left should reverse this and reinstate the NHS as it was intended.