Call off the dogs Corbyn

Oh sorry! I thought it was a fact that you were posting rather what might or could be.

As it happens I’m not happy with silencing different points of view within the Labour Party, I’d like more diversity and tolerance of different views. But then I said that already (straight after Annie started this new thread about Corbyn ?) so you will doubtless have read that and ‘taken it on board’ I expect.

I must add I’m touched that you taken such an interest in a party you do not support and I applaud you for that.

lemon, the anguish of decent centre left MP.’S is mocked or dismissed by the far left

I must add I’m touched that you taken such an interest in a party you do not support and I applaud you for that.
Any Government needs a decent opposition.
If you supported the Lib Dems they threw their lot in with the government not that long ago anyway.

But who is defining what is centre left?
What are these centre left policies that are desired?

I don't support any Party at the moment OldMeg the Lib Dems are washed up and am hoping a Centrist Party arises from the ashes to take on both the Conservatives and the new Trotskyist Party [oops, the LP] where sensible MP's can find a home.

the Centre would be left leaning Conservatives and right leaning moderate LP MP's.And a few inbetween.

Wait untill after Brexit is sorted lemon

ILovecheese, there is no centre left party so how there be centre left policies ?

Where is all the evidence of bullying in the Labour party?

Where is all the evidence of stopping free speech in the Labour party?

I would suggest that because the old Brairite MPs and others in the party have had their policies rejected by democratic vote, they now call that bullying and restricting free speech.

I will phrase the question another way then.

Those of you who desire a "centre left" party, what policies would you like them to put forward?

The Blairites state "we won three General Elections". But it is what they did not do for working people in those years that matters.

They allowed the gig economy to begin in those years.

They allowed zero-hours contracts to come about in those years

They did nothing to redress the Thatcher anti-trade union legislation that would have allowed those trade unions to fight the above.

They befriended the bankers and allowed them to run riot bringing about the 2008 financial crisis which we are all still paying for.

They engaged in an illegal War, the ramifications of which are still being felt across the middle east even today and costing many lives

That Blair and following Brown government had the nerve to call itself socialist and for working people. Now they wonder why such policies have been overwhelmingly rejected as the future by the entire Labour movement.

Blair and that Labour party took money from often poorly paid trade union member by way of their membership affiliation fees and for twelve years did absolutely nothing for them.

Utterly Disgusting, and those MPs that still believe such a policy was and is correct deserve to be de-selected.

, the vote of no confidence meeting on an MP this week
Was filmed and shown on an Iranian tv channel banned in this country. It referred to Joan Ryan as a pro Israel MP .

Can anyone explain why this happened ?

Week, if it is true that union members didn’t get what they wanted , Karma for supporting taking money from the people of Aberfan from the disater fund .

On the good side the people of Aberfan got the money back from the Blair government and now the parents of those children know their children’s graves will be tended after the parents had dead,

Justice is mine Seth the Lord, what you do to these little ones you do to me

Aberfan was many years before the Blair government era and eight years before the Health and Safety at Work Act came into being which would have in all probably prevented the disaster.

I am pleased that the Blair government put to right any monies taken from the disaster fund that should not have been taken.

However, that does not excuse the affiliation fees taken from often poorly paid trade union members throughout the Blair government years and doing absolutely nothing for those members in return.

We are told what a lovely place the Labour Party was for its members during those years and "how nice everybody was to one another".

Well, it was all paid for by those trade union members and now times have changed, and we now have a Labour party that is putting those peoples interests as first priority.

Tough for those who just want to take their money.

Would health and safety have prevented the unions from keeping Lord Robens in his job? No .

Remembering what the unions did in the seventies .

It was these strikes which caused Thatcher to tighten their reins .

No point in defending unions in all things to me , I support unions I do not support union power running the government . Do you not know some people took their lives after Robens kept his job? Members of the NUM .

Apologises to other posters from bringing my home into this thread but talk of poor suffering Unions brings back memories of their dark powers.

Without a doubt, had the Health & Safety at Work Act been in force at the time of the Aberfan disaster then Robens and many others would have lost their jobs and much more.

However, as I have already stated had the Act been in force in 1966 then it is almost certain the disaster would not have occurred. In that, risk assessment is at the very heart of the HASAWA, and under that legislation, risk assessments would have been carried out on those waste tips which would have undoubtedly brought forward the dangers they held.

Since the HASAWA was brought into being workplace accidents, have been reduced by 86% and that on the back of an ever-growing workforce.

It was the trade unions placing pressure initially on the Wilson government that brought the act into being. Therefore many working people have since its inception returned home from their employment safe and unharmed each day because of trade union presence and pressure on government.

Trade union presence and pressure that some now decry.

They befriended the bankers and allowed them to run riot bringing about the 2008 financial crisis which we are all still paying for.

Very sad to see a Labour supporter perpetuating this myth. It was an international banking crisis and although 'light touch' regulation of the UK bankers contributed to it in the UK it was not the cause of it.

Labour supporters should be defending their record here. If it hadn't been for the prompt action of Brown and Darling injecting quantitative easing of £200 billion into the economy the effects would have been appalling with bank failures and people losing the money they had deposited in them.

I doubt very much if the tories could have done any better and I suspect that their 'regulation' would have been even lighter!

The question has been asked several times on this thread and no-one has answered it. What do 'centrists' want?

This is an extract from the recent IPPR report 'Prosperity and Justice':

Our vision is of a good economy, where prosperity is joined with justice. The good economy works for all by achieving sustain- able growth and broadly shared prosperity. In the good economy, everyone – in all parts of the country – has an equally good chance of leading a good life. It allows each of us to flourish: to fulfil our economic and human potential, no matter our starting point, and to meet our needs at each stage of life. This means opportunities for good and fulfilling work; a decent income providing good living standards; and time for love, leisure, creativity and care and service to others. The good economy values people for who they are as much as what they do. It is judged not only by its results but also by the conduct of those within it, and is concerned with reciprocity, generosity and kindness. It offers hope for the future by fulfilling the promise that successive generations will have the opportunity to lead better lives.
The good economy is concerned with building the common good as well as with improving individual living standards. It meets our human and economic needs for education throughout life; for high-quality health and social care; for affordable housing and transport; for a diverse culture and vibrant democracy; and for beauty and safety in our shared spaces as well as in our private ones. The good economy ensures that our commons are well tended: valuing our natural inheritance and being good stewards for future generations by diminishing the impact of economic activity on the earth’s climate and resources.

www.ippr.org/research/publications/prosperity-and-justice-executive-summary

Does this reflect the sort of thing centrists would like to see or do they have a problem with it?

It makes me wonder how it can be that there are within the Labour party members who are opposed to both the present polices and leadership of the party and also hold no support for the trade union movement

The above are the very basis of the whole Labour movement, one body.

Therefore what are those people doing there if there is nothing in the whole Labour movment they support.

1997 papers released under the 30 year rule show Robens worked with the NUM to gather support, then agreed the wording of a letter from Marsh refusing Robens resignation BEFORE his supposed resignation.

And all union members during the Blair government were Male, single and childless . ?

MaizieD, I agree that the 2008 finance crisis was an international event. However, London was even then a significant centre for the banking and finance industry. Questions were asked in the years before the crash took place in regarding the lack of effective regulation surrounding the city.

I may be wrong but believe it was Gordon Brown in his role as chancellor who stated to the media that the city would "not tolerate" further legislation being placed on it.

If it was not Gordon Brown who said that it was undoubtedly someone senior in the Blair administration.

anniebach quote[ And all union members during the Blair government were Male, single and childless . ?] End quote

I and I am sure many more who read the above post will have great difficulty in understanding the meaning of that statement. Also the make up of trade union members in the Blair era was nothing like as stated.

Where does you wonderings take you Grandad1943. I haven’t read a post where a poster has said they hold no support for the trade union movement .

Because grandad you said the Blair government did nothing for trade union members ,

Minimum wage.

Brought in paternity leave

Sure Start

The right for full time workers to receive 24 days paid holidays.

Introduced child tax credits

Free breast screen scanning for women 50 to 70

More than doubled apprenticeships

And more,

but did nothing for trade union members ?

Now you say the present Labour Party will put unions first, how silly, they have no choice ,