Mainstream Labour

Politics and integrity !

What I would like is a government with integrity, that mean what they say, puts this country first,people who work hard having to use food banks why we take in more and more people we have to house, its madness. ,We have found out this one doesn't care, KS is a very bad judge of character, not a good quality for PM. overlooking the genrral concerns of working people. The Conservatives don't know what they stand for either, so I have given up for now as more and more recreations come out.
First thing stop the tax on farmers so we continue to be supplied with food and encourage business, so we continue to have jobs for people. Rachel Reeves should go she's useless.

“Deregulation was stupid (and Reeves is looking to do it again) but Brown and Darling prevented catastrophe in 2008”

All Brown did was dig the UK out of a hole he helped create, he was a poor PM too.

Blair created a bubble based on a free all that was not sustainable, we all enjoyed the good times, including myself, but it hurt a lot of people who ended up on the wrong side of the slump. One post on this thread labled Blair as “centre left”, rubbish, he continued all of Thatchers policies.

At least Blair had control of his party although he did cut and run when the going got tough.

Allira

MaizieD

Corbyn has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

What do you think of Mainstream Labour, Ab?

It is relevant, though, because the Labour Party seems to be splintering into groups which is not good for its future

Corbyn isn’t in the Labour party.

He’s not relevant to a thread about a group within the LP.

MaizieD

Corbyn has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

What do you think of Mainstream Labour, Ab?

It is relevant, though, because the Labour Party seems to be splintering into groups which is not good for its future

Casdon

No, Corbyn’s Party is known as Your Party for now. It would be ironic if his Party was called Mainstream, surely.

Your Party!
It sounds like a cue for a song.

David49

MaizieD

Iraq war, or not, Blairs administration did a lot of good things, particularly funding public services (though PFI was a massive mistake which this government, with typical idiocy, looks likely to repeat.

And Brown's government saved the banks after the GFC, without them a lot of ordinary people would have ended up losing their money. The country was coming out of the recession caused by the GFC when it voted the tories in, who plunged us straight back into recession with its unnecessary 'austerity'.

I think the Blair/Brown years were the best we've had in the last 45 years, even though they could have done much better. But that's what adhering to neoliberal economic policy does. It doesn't really do much to improve the underlying needs of the country.

Deregulation caused the crash in 2008 all Brown did was follow the free for all that started in the US from which we have never recovered. All the giveaways that Blair introduced weren’t affordable, which is why boerrowing increased and growth declined
So we’re going to have an ethical Labour Party with no pollution or injustice, pie in the sky, politics isnt like that there is always someone that isn’t getting what they think they should

You need to learn some economic history David. Particularly the function of QE in response to the GFC..

Deregulation was stupid (and Reeves is looking to do it again) but Brown and Darling prevented catastrophe in 2008

MaizieD

Iraq war, or not, Blairs administration did a lot of good things, particularly funding public services (though PFI was a massive mistake which this government, with typical idiocy, looks likely to repeat.

And Brown's government saved the banks after the GFC, without them a lot of ordinary people would have ended up losing their money. The country was coming out of the recession caused by the GFC when it voted the tories in, who plunged us straight back into recession with its unnecessary 'austerity'.

I think the Blair/Brown years were the best we've had in the last 45 years, even though they could have done much better. But that's what adhering to neoliberal economic policy does. It doesn't really do much to improve the underlying needs of the country.

Deregulation caused the crash in 2008 all Brown did was follow the free for all that started in the US from which we have never recovered. All the giveaways that Blair introduced weren’t affordable, which is why boerrowing increased and growth declined
So we’re going to have an ethical Labour Party with no pollution or injustice, pie in the sky, politics isnt like that there is always someone that isn’t getting what they think they should

But it did improve public services, education and the NHS.

Until the 2008 banking crash.

Labour also recognised that in order fix the result of the crash we needed to grow our way out of the problem through government investment in the economy, and indeed that is exactly what the Brown government began to do, but Cameron put an absolute stop to that and austerity for the less well off, but where wealth became concentrated at the top becoming the new reality, and the beginning of the discontent, which end result has been Brexit and populism, because absolutely nothing has been done to address the structural problems in the economy and society, and the discontent of the working classes and indeed the middle class whose salaries have stagnated for years.

Blair/Brown , won three general elections consecutively

Iraq war, or not, Blairs administration did a lot of good things, particularly funding public services (though PFI was a massive mistake which this government, with typical idiocy, looks likely to repeat.

And Brown's government saved the banks after the GFC, without them a lot of ordinary people would have ended up losing their money. The country was coming out of the recession caused by the GFC when it voted the tories in, who plunged us straight back into recession with its unnecessary 'austerity'.

I think the Blair/Brown years were the best we've had in the last 45 years, even though they could have done much better. But that's what adhering to neoliberal economic policy does. It doesn't really do much to improve the underlying needs of the country.

The point being that charisma doesn’t alone make for a decent, effective pm.

And absolutely nothing to do with Labour?

Boris also charismatic

Partly Oreo. The other big factor, like him or not, was that he had charisma.

The reason Tony Blair did so well was that he was centre left as was Gordon Brown, the latter being a really good Chancellor and the former a good PM.

It wouldn’t be at all popular with voters tho Eloethan not at all.

I had been in the Labour Party since my teens and, from what I can remember, kept up that membership for many years.

My pleasure at Labour winning under Blair turned to dismay when we invaded Iraq. I think I remained in the party but went on all the protests against our actions in Iraq.

I finally lost faith when I saw Corbyn being labelled an anti-semite and witnessed those that had previously lavished him with praise and supposed friendship (like Starmer) turn on him, once he realised who the sacrificial lamb was designated to be.

I then left the party and actually voted Green. However, when Labour came to power I sincerely hoped it would do well. Even though my instincts were to oppose measures like cuts in welfare, I accepted that, after 14 years of total ineptitude of the Conservatives, difficult and sometimes unfair measures had to be taken (though it would have been nice if at least one decision had affected the super rich).

Now I have to admit to myself that Starmer appears to have no moral compass whatsoever and is willing to support or desert anyone or any group if he feels it is what will keep him out of the firing line. I am hoping that the Greens, Corbyn, et al, and organisations like Compass can form some sort of coalition/alliance that will have a much greater degree of decency than currently appears to be the case.

Anything with the word Kabour in it would make me cringe.

I joined the Labour Party many years ago and left when Tony Blair took money away from single parents.
I rejoined because of Corbyn, voted for Starmer in the leadership election and left again when he broke all his pledges.

Graceless

Anniebach

I left the party because of Corbyn, joined again as soon as he stood down as leader

I was the opposite - joined to vote for Corbyn; left when Starmer showed his true colours.

The only time I left the Labour Party was when we joined the war in Iraq. I rejoined when the Tories came in and started Austerity big time, but now, finding Mainstream spot on.

Grantanow

I'm not sure Labour first principles would be enough to see off Farage. How would that work?

Swap My Vote Grantanow Needed here to keep reform out.

www.swapmyvote.uk

Read and consider joining here for your local and national elections

Locally, in my particular ward, that means us LP quietly behind the scenes standing back. These particular Lib Dems are a OK lot anyway, helpful.

I agree with your analysis, Lahlah65. that's what it seemed like to me, too. Tory using a deflection technique in an interview. It's not an uncommon practice.

Anniebach

I left the party because of Corbyn, joined again as soon as he stood down as leader

I was the opposite - joined to vote for Corbyn; left when Starmer showed his true colours.

Doversole

Wyllow3:

“our branch is known as the "sensible lot"….We also discussed who should be the Deputy Prime minister, and agrees that Lucy Powell was best. “

Am really shocked at this. It is Lucy Powell who said In May 2025, on the BBC Radio 4 programme Any Questions? In response to a question about grooming gangs , “Oh, we want to blow that little trumpet now, do we? Let’s get that dog whistle out, shall we.”

How anyone can support her after that is beyond belief. Apart from demonstrating total lack of judgement and morals, it speaks volumes of how disconnected from real life she is if she thought that was in any a defensible position.

Sorry but I am very concerned about the grooming gangs issue and had expected Gransnetters would be too.

Lucy Powell’s reaction was a response to how the issue of grooming gangs was being used for political capital. It did not imply that the issue was not important, or that she didn’t take it seriously. It was out of frustration for how it was being used- it’s been around for a long time, and politicians (including Kemi Badenoch) who profess deep concern now showed no interest in the past when it was in their own hands to do something about it. The resulting attack on LP was not justified.