The Labour party does have a real problem. If they are going to be 'Tory-lite' as Maunder is suggesting, they're on to a loser as people will just say 'What's the difference?' and vote Tory anyway. If they return to their roots and a much more left-wing agenda, it's clear that at the moment, the feeling of the country is against them.

My advice would be to go for the latter option, and wait it out until it's clear (as I think it will become) that the Tory agenda is contrary to the interests of the people of this country as a whole*, favouring as it does those that have rather than those that haven't. And as a more philosophical point, the electorate ought to have a choice between right and left wing policies, not just between right wing and a bit more right wing.

 

* If you don't believe that such shifts can happen, consider the fate of the Tory party in Scotland

---

Scotland is a special case though, because of nationalism. Yes, the popular mood does swing between left and right, just as it swings between social liberalism and constraint. However, the English in particular appear to be happy with what some call Anglo-Saxon laissez faire capitalism.

Team Miliband clearly thought a fundamental shift to the left occurred because of the Credit Crunch and acted accordingly - well they got their answer on May 7th. The most successful Labour leader since Atlee has been Tory Blair, who promised as you say, Tory Lite - Conservative economics, combined with social liberalism and increasing benefits handouts - proved popular for a time, but would it work in the future? Perhaps, once people get tired of the real Conservatives once more.

---

Odd, I'm sure I remember plenty on the right self righteously expressing similar views about the electorate during the campaign if they didn't vote Conservative - I must go back through a few threads (before the disappear...) and find examples.

I mean, surely you think your political views are right too???

.

 

I disagree.

The problem with the left is that they fail to offer a coherent message to explain in simple terms how a country with a more equal distribution of wealth & better rights for us in work will offer a much better existence for the vast majority.

The message gets diluted & distracted by a combination of special interest minority causes who attach themselves to the core leftist message, and constant rebuttal of right-wing vested interest propaganda.

 

---

There is a big difference between being self righteous and in being simply right.

Seriously though - I don't think I am better than Labour voters - I have Labour voting friends and I would never cut them off because they have different political views from my own. I would go further and state that I enjoy having friends whose political views are very different from my own, since that leads to interesting discussions and debates.

The difference between right and left often comes down to this - the right are pragmatic, accept human nature for what it is and work for the best possible outcome in the light of that reality, whereas the left for some reason, appear to believe in what they see as the perfectability of human beings and as a consequence are idealistic.

In a battle between idealism and pragmatism, for me the latter wins every time.

---

 

Rather, the left understand that if we control our more base & animalistic instincts like greed & self-interest at the expense of everyone else, society would be a better place.

 

---

Which statement is to misunderstand the right. Greed and self interest are of course important human characteristics, but so are loyalty, honour and self sacrifice. The right take the view that our interests ripple out from the self to family, community and country. For example, I would put myself in harms way to save my wife or daughters from harm themselves. The point is that mutuality diminishes the further you get from the centre.

Look at the argument about welfare for example. In a largely homogenous society with a strong sense of shared community, paying tax to support those less fortunate can feel justified. In a fragmented society with a lot of immigrants and guest workers, paying tax to pay for their benefits sticks in the craw. That is part of the basis for Cameron's attempts to claw back some control from the EU - native citizens really do resent migrants from other parts of the EU being eligible for a whole raft of benefits, including in work benefits like tax credits.

It has long been a reality that the welfare state is incompatible with open borders, a view expressed eloquently in the 1970s by Milton Freidman. So the dichotomy for the left there, is that if they want to build a welfare society, it should be done in the context of the nation state with strong border controls.

---

Actually, they are precisely the same - perhaps that's what you meant?

Plenty on the right are idealistic - Gove for example, or TBW of the past. I do, though, think the Conservative party is more connected with reality when it is as it is now - same applies to Labour.

I'm 'of the left'. I don't think human being are perfectable,  I think we're, all, flawed. I can't think of many changes to this country over the last 200 years, changes which have made it a better place, that originated from the right. What say you?

Much is being made of how bad this election was for Labour. But the truth is they increased their vote nationally by about 1%. And the Conservatives? They increased their vote by....about 1%...No, the real story of this election was the collapse of the LD vote and the consequences of said, and the effect of the SNP surge on Labour.

Most Labour voters support strike curbs: Poll reveals nearly six in ten are in favour of Most Labour voters support strike curbs policy and also approve of plans for benefits cap and English-only votes

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3114667/Most-Labour-voters-support-strike-curbs-Poll-reveals-nearly-six-ten-favour-Cameron-s-policy-approve-plans-benefits-cap-English-votes.html

So it would seem a majority of Labour supporters back the Tories on a whole host of reforms.

So you could say the gap between The Labour Party and its supporters is huge!!

---

Appears that Grant Shapps has been cleared of the Wikipedia scam exposed during the election campaign:

http://order-order.com/2015/06/08/wikipedia-slaps-down-grant-schapps-libdem-wikipedia-tormentor/

Has come too late to save his job however and that is because whether true or not, the allegation against Shapps (aka Michael Green) was all too believable.

---

 

The allegations against Schapps/Green were a tad more serious than the Wiki stuff.

 

 

---

Well, here is a Conservative election promise being fulfilled:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/11713133/SNP-fury-as-government-announces-English-votes-for-English-laws.html

---

Good.

---

 

About time too

Now we need an English parliament  !

---

TBH not really followed that story too carefully as it was obvious from the outset that this was a set-up. That said as he's the local MP where my business is located I'd be interested to learn about the extra (presumably substantive) meat on the bone.

---

I see Labour and the SNP accuse the Tories of racism over the England only votes!

---

Gerald Kaufman is a right, royal prick!

Why is it only the English who are accused of "racism" in the context of the United Kingdom, whilst the Scots are allowed their SNP and Holyrood, the Welsh are allowed their Plaid Cymru and Senedd and the Irish have all sorts of national identities, plus Stormont?

All we are asking for is fairness, following devolution to the other constituent nations of the UK.

---

 

A pet hate of mine is referring to different nationalities as 'races'.

A Caucasian Scottish person is the same race as a Caucasian English person is the same race as a Caucasian French person, etc

So how the frig this can be 'racism' is beyond me

---

Perhaps if Westminster, say 40-50 years ago, had been willing to modernise the political system in this country and had been willing to change to something of a more federal structure, the situation we have now may never have come about. FWIW I reckon that had that been done, then the likes of the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and even the Northern Irish Assembly may never have become necessary.

The situation we had up until 1999 whereby Westminster decided everything for everyone was no longer tenable, IMO. It's just a pity that no-one there realised many years before then that change would one day be required.

---

With the government still taking a hatchet to public services & public sector jobs in the name of 'austerity', funny how they can find the estimated £1bn+ to help people getting an already huge windfall pay no tax on it

 

Utterly disgraceful, but no doubt the usual suspects on here will commence their circle-jerk over how the Tories take off the poor to give to the rich.

 

 

---

To be quite brutal, I'm not convinced that 85 year olds should be allowed to stand for parliament. By the time of next election, he will be pushing 90.......if he lives that long.

I certainly think there should be an upper age limit for MPs, 75 to 80 at most. 

---

Osborne is not "giving " money to anyone. He is taking slightly less off the beneficiaries of estates worth up to 1 million is all.

 

---

 

semantics.

Nothing to say on the actual policy?

---

Well after one of George Osbourne's economic advisers was caught in a crack den last year, this may help to explain some of their flawed policies. Since 2010 the debt of the UK has increased from 0.8 trillion to 1.4 trillion pounds. Immigration has significantly increased, to be fair there has been an improvement in GDP, but only because they now include prostitution and illegal drug sales. London is now the home of money laundering, and a ridiculous property bubble which ones again fuels GDP. I can't wait to see what happens in the next 5 years.