I ADORE Ed Miliband

@panda12 wrote:

@Sgt Pepper wrote:

A curious one.. Many see this as a step backwards for the British Labour Party.
Older brother David received the most votes from MPs and ordinary Labour Party members.
Ed won thanks to the huge vote he got from the Trade Unions.

The only reason Labour gained power in the first place in the 1990s was due to Tony Blair recognising the sceptism existing between business and the City with the arcane mechanics of Trade Unionism. By promoting a new, centre – leaning socialism he, and his New Labour strategy went a long way in bridging this gap which for so long kept Labour from power.. recognising the inherent failure in exclusively leftist political mantra and promoting modern, market based dynamics that also include the basic cultural tenets of socialism as best they could.
Third Way politics as it had come to be known.

Trade Unions have never really forgiven Mr. Blair (or his followers) for this.
Trade Unionism gave birth to The Labour Party.. but like an over protective mother, it stifled it’s horizons and potential on many occasions, often for selfish reasons
This result could be one of those tragic repressions.
Maybe not?

Oh and I believe Ed is a Leeds Utd Supporter….

God help you all!!:roll:

The Trade Unions did not give birth to the Labour Party. Giving more working class people the vote gave birth to the Labour Party as a party to cater for their needs. The Trade Unions naturally allied with this new party as it represented the needs of their members.

Besides, Keir Hardie was a Methodist Preacher not a Trade Union man – hence the quote: “Socialism in Britain owed more to Methodism than Marx,” by Morgan Philips in the 1950s.

Yes, all very well.. but nonetheless the Labour Party grew out of the Trade Union movement. Simple, irrefutable, historical fact.
A simple study of the facts will indicate the prominent (and indeed dominant) role Trade Unionism played in establishing The Labour Representation Committee towrds the end of the 1800s. An embryonic entity that formed the foundations of .. uh huh.. that’s right.. The Labour Party!
Tah Dah!!!
Yes, other socialist movements and parties contributed to this evolution. Unions were not wholly responsible for it’s fruition, I’m not denying that.
Only a fool would jump to the conclusion that political movements are born of one, all encompassing, singular dynamic. But it would be folly to suggest that their part in it’s creation wasn’t crucial, indeed invaluable. Hence the birthing metaphor.

@terry wrote:

@Sgt Pepper wrote:

The only reason Labour gained power in the first place in the 1990s was due to Tony Blair recognising the sceptism existing between business and the City with the arcane mechanics of Trade Unionism. By promoting a new, centre – leaning socialism he, and his New Labour strategy went a long way in bridging this gap which for so long kept Labour from power.. recognising the inherent failure in exclusively leftist political mantra and promoting modern, market based dynamics that also include the basic cultural tenets of socialism as best they could.

Don’t you think Labour “gaining power in the first place” may have been due – ever so slightly – to the British public being fed up of 18 years of Conservative government?

It’s just a thought…. :roll:

.. Yep, and a perfectly valid thought at that Tel. I agree, the fatigue factor generated by continuous Conservative governance certainly had a hand in amassing significant Labour gains.
People were finally fed up with the Tory gig. Yet, I still don’t think that alone clinched the deal with the British electorate as far as New Labour were concerned.
Afterall, relying on this alone had failed in the previous two polls.
Because there is a great gulf in being fed up.. and fear.
That is why, it’s generally accepted in political circles that convincing big business and the markets – allaying their inherent fears of the Labour party in government – was the grand achievement in 1997.
Trust was established.. media bandwagons rolled red.. the people made the usual spread of informed and/or reactionary choices.
Such is the very nature of politics.
If social concerns are at the very heart of the body politic, then the economy is certainly the brains behind it all.
All of these things, together with the bounce in Mr. Blair’s step, paved the way.
This new found confidence was justified by the two subsequent Labour election victories.

@terry wrote:

@Sgt Pepper wrote:

The only reason Labour gained power in the first place in the 1990s was due to Tony Blair recognising the sceptism existing between business and the City with the arcane mechanics of Trade Unionism. By promoting a new, centre – leaning socialism he, and his New Labour strategy went a long way in bridging this gap which for so long kept Labour from power.. recognising the inherent failure in exclusively leftist political mantra and promoting modern, market based dynamics that also include the basic cultural tenets of socialism as best they could.

Don’t you think Labour “gaining power in the first place” may have been due – ever so slightly – to the British public being fed up of 18 years of Conservative government?

It’s just a thought…. :roll:

By jove, Terry!

I think you’ve hit the nail on the head!

Sgt Pepper:

Anyone with an ounce of common would know that after 18 years of Tory rule, “old” Labour would never appeal to the majority of voters again!

A whole new generation grew up under Thatcher and Major – gone was the “sharing, caring” attitude found in many tight knit communities and in came the “I’m all right mate fcu k you” class perpetrated by the creation of “wealth” – a whole class that could afford to buy a property (council house) and few shares in newly privatised companies.

This generation was never going to vote for “traditional” Labour values – I doubt if even Blair and Brown could ever adopt traditional Labour values – they were from the wrong generation!

Creation of this new class meant that partisan alignment, so prominent in the 1960s, was dead.

You make it sound as if Blair’s was being machiavellian in the way he formed “New” Labour. There was nothing sinister – it was natural progression!

Peel did the same in the 1834 with The Tamworth Manifesto. It’s a form of political evolution, not skulduggery.

@terry wrote:

@panda12 wrote:

You make it sound as if Blair’s was being machiavellian in the way he formed “New” Labour. There was nothing sinister – it was natural progression.

And let’s not forget, he only had to beat a Conservative party led by boring John Major to win the election. How difficult was that? :roll:

Not difficult in 1997 but don’t forget, major beat Kinnock in 1992 despite the polls originally suggesting otherwise.