The Labour party time machine…

… taking us straight back to 1987.

Well, for all those of us hoping that this weekend would result in a buoyant and effective Labour party emerging from the drabness of the Brown years to form a dynamic (and possibly, if enough LimpDems defected, effective), opposition, we’ve been royally shafted.

We simply cannot – and I say this as a lifelong Labour supporter and trade union activist – have a party leader so deeply in hock to the unions, while, at the same time, clearly being unwanted by his own MPs and party.

And can a leader, actually unelected by the party he leads, but elected by the unions, actually be constitutional? Reading today’s papers, there does seem to be a real doubt about that. Not to mention the dodgy behaviour of the GMB in so openly supporting Ed on their election form mailshot.

And, also, not to mention the fact that he is, quite simply, the wrong brother – apart from anything else, Ed is hugely inexperienced compared to his brother. David, true, still carries the taint of Blairism, but I believe he can get past that. What we can’t get past, right now, is that Ed Miliband, in all probability equals another long spell in the opposition wilderness. Still, perhaps there’s a cupboard full of flat caps and beer glasses somewhere in party HQ, because, with that farce of an election, New Labour is truly dead and buried.

I never thought to see the day when I agreed with a Tory politician, but Lady Warsi was right on the money when she said that “Ed Miliband wasn’t the choice of his MPs, wasn’t the choice of Labour party members but was put in to power by union votes. I’m afraid this looks like a great leap backwards for the Labour party.”

In spades.

6 thoughts on “The Labour party time machine…

  1. The truth is it doesn’t matter if labour or tory is in power they are all the same, the centre ground voters hold all the power so whoever leads either party has to be pretty much indentical. You honestly think David Miliband would do anything different to David Cameron? the difference between them is so small it’s meaningless.

    No one can get past the taint of Blair or Brown, even Cameron couldn’t that’s why he didn’t do very well, he is just a Blair copy and everyone sees it. No one can truly win a majority anymore, because they are either to false salesman like or too right or left wing. The centre ground voters hold all the power and they don’t want anything in the country to change much. Left wing and right wing voters cancel each other out and then another saleperson / centre ground figure slips through and becomes PM. It’s going to be this type of stalemate result from now on, nothing will change, the right and left wings of the country just balance each other too much. Unless that changes, then nothing will change and it really doesn’t matter if labour or conservatives are in power.

  2. Ed Milliband seems to be doing alright in the polls so far, presumably because he is saying and doing nothing. Wonder how long that will last?

    • I’ve little confidence in Ed, he’s way more inexperienced than Cameron and, hell, even his own party didn’t want him – he’s only there on the back of the union vote. I think we got the wrong brother. The claim that David was tainted by Blair was facile – the same could be said of the rest of the party – and he is vastly more experienced than Ed in pretty much every area.

      I’m deeply unimpressed with Labour as a whole, too. When Woolas was – quite correctly – dumped by Harman, the Labour MPs turned on her. Shows where their priorities lie.

Comments are closed.