General Election 2015

[BuddieInDundee]

Do you honestly think it was his decision and his alone?

No but he still led us into it. I don't think it would have been exactly impossible to say a big fat naw to the Americans. Having said that I don't think there's a solid argument for the Iraq War for or against because there's no way in hell we know the full facts. I'd give it until Blair etc. die and then some of the truth will start to come out.

[welshbairn]

If not, then I don't think his double-digit vote will get him into the lineup at all.

No need to be rude.

[Kyle]

Do you honestly think it was his decision and his alone?

Impossible to know at this stage because we don't know the full details. However, he was the prime minister and he did command a huge majority at the time. He certainly pushed for it to be voted through, and ultimately led us into it for nonsense reasons.

History wont remember him kindly because of this action. He was obviously an excellent statesman, certainly better than his replacement, but actions speak louder than words.

[AUFC90]

I'll start

Cash for Honours. Anyone else want to chip in with what he will be remembered for

PFI ? Another of Blair/Brown's legacies that will affect the poor for years to come.

[Kyle]

PFI ? Another of Blair/Brown's legacies that will affect the poor for years to come.

I did a project at uni and concluded that PFI was a great idea

What a thundercunt I am.

[Baxter Parp]

I can only judge him from what he puts online. If xbl wants to claim he behaved differently in his 'politics degree', then fine.

You were judging him against the conduct of your colleagues, so you must know how they behave away from the classroom or you've made a complete arse of it.

[Tamdunk]

The gap between the rich and the poor increased massively over nu labour's term

[Fotbawmad]

I have a fucking degree in politics as it happens. Its blatantly you that doesn't understand, that's what politics is, people with shared values grouping together to form parties. If those values change it isn't the same party anymore, it just has the same name.

Parties are allowed to change values, especially if a historic or current philosophy makes them unelectable. Parties need to reflect the culture and mood of society (whether these values are good or bad). People are too blinded by what they perceive their party as being. I find it ironic that people perceive an opposing party as being "evil and efficient", while they perceive their own as being "well intentioned and incompetent"

As I said before it was Blair/Brown that introduced the minimum wage and tax credits for poorer families which have been a massive help to people . Blair was an excellent prime minister who will be remembered for making one bad foreign policy decision.

Judging by all that youth unemployment it looks like the minimum wage has been a barrier to entry as well as for ethnic minorities. I find it ironic that lefties hate these big corporate's, but fail to realize that the minimum wage only benefits them. If we had a GBI, then we wouldn't need a minimum wage. Aside Iraq, Blair's worst decision was allowing high street and investment banking to be merged, as well as legalizing derivatives and making it a free for all. The primary reason why 2008 was as bad as it was.

I'll start

Cash for Honours. Anyone else want to chip in with what he will be remembered for

Cash for honours has been going on for centuries.

[EnglishmanAbroad]

What is the problem with you Scots? It's not as if anyone in the rest of the UK actively tries to piss you all off.

Yet you appear to have a serious chip on your shoulder? Why?

[I'm Brian]

Impossible to know at this stage because we don't know the full details. However, he was the prime minister and he did command a huge majority at the time. He certainly pushed for it to be voted through, and ultimately led us into it for nonsense reasons.

History wont remember him kindly because of this action. He was obviously an excellent statesman, certainly better than his replacement, but actions speak louder than words.

Pushed it so hard that he justified invasion with an Anthony C Pick standard of document. On the back of all of this he drove a man to suicide...or alleged suicide. We will need to wait a touch under 60 years to find out the real cause of death. Evidence submitted to an enquiry surrounding a man's death classified for seventy years. There's absolutely nothing suspect about that in the slightest.

Of course there are other allegations that are simmering at the moment, and his alleged affair with Murdoch's missus, whilst being in Murdoch's back pocket. He is a despicable human being and hopefully one day he will get his come-uppance

[Kyle]

What is the problem with you Scots? It's not as if anyone in the rest of the UK actively tries to piss you all off. Yet you appear to have a serious chip on your shoulder? Why?

Hi Reynard.

[WhiteRoseKillie]

As it happens I have, whilst we are all dick wagging about our degrees, but I don't really think that matters. Labour are my party and their current position, moderately left of centre, is where my political beliefs lie. If either change I'll likely not vote Labour any more, but I don't see why what Labour did 30 years ago has to do with my opinion of what Labour should do now.

It's interesting that most people on this thread talking about what Labour 'should' do or be or represent, don't support the party.

Either you haven't, or you're a special kind of stupid. "Moderately left of centre", indeed.

What you fall to realise is that what a political party should do is remain true to the principles upon which it was founded. Nothing the Labour Party has done since you were filling your nappy comes anywhere near that basic requirement. As someone stated earlier, it may make them more electable, and it may make them less so. What it does is make them a different party - one which the early members would find just as repugnant as any of the political opponents they faced between the wars.

[WhiteRoseKillie]

As I said before it was Blair/Brown that introduced the minimum wage and tax credits for poorer families which have been a massive help to people . Blair was an excellent prime minister who will be remembered for making one bad foreign policy decision.

PFI. Your serve.

ETA: beaten to it. How about devaluing tertiary education, then? Personal bugbear, that one.

[BerwickMad]

You were judging him against the conduct of your colleagues, so you must know how they behave away from the classroom or you've made a complete arse of it.

Not really. I only have here to judge when it comes to him. If he behaved like a normal person at uni, then fine, but I can't judge him on that.

[jmothecat]

Either you haven't, or you're a special kind of stupid. "Moderately left of centre", indeed.

What you fall to realise is that what a political party should do is remain true to the principles upon which it was founded. Nothing the Labour Party has done since you were filling your nappy comes anywhere near that basic requirement. As someone stated earlier, it may make them more electable, and it may make them less so. What it does is make them a different party - one which the early members would find just as repugnant as any of the political opponents they faced between the wars.

Why does a political party have to remain true to the 'principles' on which it was founded?

Sticking to a set of ideas founded over a century ago which have little relevance to contemporary politics and modern society would leave the Labour Party as irrelevant as the Socialist Workers Party. Politics has changed, democratic socialism has changed and Labour have changed, I see nothing wrong with that. The basic premise of the party hasn't changed, we are still a democratic socialist party, we still have strong and close links with the unions, but have managed to do so without becoming unelectable or an irrelevance.

[NotThePars]

If a party wants to change it's principles then that's fine but maybe Labour should stop trying to sell itself to voters on ideas of socialism, the principles of the party in 1945 or by invoking the spirit of Keir Hardie because it's none of those things as it's blatantly dishonest.

[I'm Brian]

Why does a political party have to remain true to the 'principles' on which it was founded?

Sticking to a set of ideas founded over a century ago which have little relevance to contemporary politics and modern society would leave the Labour Party as irrelevant as the Socialist Workers Party. Politics has changed, democratic socialism has changed and Labour have changed, I see nothing wrong with that. The basic premise of the party hasn't changed, we are still a democratic socialist party, we still have strong and close links with the unions, but have managed to do so without becoming unelectable or an irrelevance.

That is debatable. They are getting looser and more distant as the years go on.

[jmothecat]

If a party wants to change it's principles then that's fine but maybe Labour should stop trying to sell itself to voters on ideas of socialism, the principles of the party in 1945 or by invoking the spirit of Keir Hardie because it's none of those things as it's blatantly dishonest.

So because our philosophy has adapted to modern society we can no longer talk about things our party previously did?

[jmothecat]

That is debatable. They are getting looser and more distant as the years go on.

My union donated £1 million to the Labour Party just a month and a half ago. Looser, yes, but difficult to argue that they aren't still closely linked and don't hold a lot of influence. They are probably the main reason we have Ed not David as leader.

[Thumper]

So because our philosophy has adapted to modern society we can no longer talk about things our party previously did?

The people in "your" party who want to do that were the ones you were slagging off as being daft old Commies. Or do you mean "talk about" in the sense of "vaguely waffle on about while basically doing the exact opposite", which is what the Labour front bench's official policy is. A Labour Shadow Chancellor approving of Osborne's budget by the sake of Odin.