Is Labour a party without a purpose?

[Midas]

The Labour leadership contest serves only to highlight a movement bereft of ideas and direction.

Lord Mandelson was in typically waspish form at the party to launch his memoirs, The Third Man, at the Royal Festival Hall. In a sixth-floor room with striking views across the Thames, his speech to the assembled throng of senior Labour Party and media figures, laced with one-liners, was a model of its kind.

As former Cabinet ministers such as Lord Falconer mingled with members of Gordon Brown's inner circle, the business secretary-turned-author hinted of more revelations to come. "There's always the paperback version," he smiled, menacingly.

Notable by their absence, though, were all the contenders in the party's current leadership contest – David Miliband, Ed Miliband, Ed Balls, Andy Burnham and Diane Abbott. And the reason for their no-show? Probably because the publication of The Third Man has once again turned Lord Mandelson into a toxic figure for Labour.

Even though the book does not contain a single bombshell revelation, its 512 pages reveal the clearest-yet inside account of the vicious in-fighting, feuds and factionalism that soured Labour's 13 years in power. The timing of its publication – in the middle of the leadership contest, and three months before that of Tony Blair's book – has also ensured its author is showered with opprobrium.

The backlash against the peer has been brutal. Kicked off in last weekend's Sunday Telegraph by Charlie Whelan, Gordon Brown's former aide, who accused Lord Mandelson of running "the worst general election campaign in Labour's history", it was continued by Lord Kinnock, the former party leader, who said the ex-business secretary had become a "caricature of himself".

The line savoured by Lord Mandelson's many enemies, however, came from David Blunkett. "Peter," the former home secretary declared (borrowing a barb once thrown at Geoffrey Boycott, the Yorkshire cricketer), "fell in love with himself at an early age, and has remained faithful ever since." Mr Blunkett was one of many to point out that vivid reminders of the "internecine mistakes of the past" were hardly the best fare to put before voters as Labour sought to rekindle their trust in the wake of the party's election defeat.

The full story available from here : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/labour/7896599/Is-Labour-a-party-without-a-purpose.html

Ruinous in government and ineffective in opposition really does sum up the Labour Party……

[Scooby]

I find it funny that the ex governments faces are now condemning Mandy, if he was lying one of them would have taken out an injunction to stop the printing, all it has done is further shown that the new labour government couldn't do the job, we knew that, but this casts further light on the fact that were a bunch of self serving lying, backstabbling dishonest bastards who put party politics and self before their elected representatives. It shows that Brown as we all suspected behaved like a spoiled child, who had the audacity to believe it was his right to be Prime Minister, the Labour party needs to think long and hard about where it needs to be to be a Labour party and needs to learn to behave with respect to voters and the intitution of parliament then they will begin to find their way again

[uncon]

The Labour leadership contest serves only to highlight a movement bereft of ideas and direction.

Lord Mandelson was in typically waspish form at the party to launch his memoirs, The Third Man, at the Royal Festival Hall. In a sixth-floor room with striking views across the Thames, his speech to the assembled throng of senior Labour Party and media figures, laced with one-liners, was a model of its kind.

As former Cabinet ministers such as Lord Falconer mingled with members of Gordon Brown's inner circle, the business secretary-turned-author hinted of more revelations to come. "There's always the paperback version," he smiled, menacingly.

Notable by their absence, though, were all the contenders in the party's current leadership contest – David Miliband, Ed Miliband, Ed Balls, Andy Burnham and Diane Abbott. And the reason for their no-show? Probably because the publication of The Third Man has once again turned Lord Mandelson into a toxic figure for Labour.

Even though the book does not contain a single bombshell revelation, its 512 pages reveal the clearest-yet inside account of the vicious in-fighting, feuds and factionalism that soured Labour's 13 years in power. The timing of its publication – in the middle of the leadership contest, and three months before that of Tony Blair's book – has also ensured its author is showered with opprobrium.

The backlash against the peer has been brutal. Kicked off in last weekend's Sunday Telegraph by Charlie Whelan, Gordon Brown's former aide, who accused Lord Mandelson of running "the worst general election campaign in Labour's history", it was continued by Lord Kinnock, the former party leader, who said the ex-business secretary had become a "caricature of himself".

The line savoured by Lord Mandelson's many enemies, however, came from David Blunkett. "Peter," the former home secretary declared (borrowing a barb once thrown at Geoffrey Boycott, the Yorkshire cricketer), "fell in love with himself at an early age, and has remained faithful ever since." Mr Blunkett was one of many to point out that vivid reminders of the "internecine mistakes of the past" were hardly the best fare to put before voters as Labour sought to rekindle their trust in the wake of the party's election defeat.

The full story available from here : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/labour/7896599/Is-Labour-a-party-without-a-purpose.html

Ruinous in government and ineffective in opposition really does sum up the Labour Party……

To be fair this does seem to be part of the on-going pattern, a sheen of the new while the old repeats itself....a long period of government followed by a re-invention with a few false starts, but ultimately the Tories build up the coffers and become misers and then Labour spend it all and then some, but create benefits for all at some point. Both do well and then go too far. Will coalition stop that?

[UncleVanya]

"A Party without a purpose!".... probably at this time, especially when some professional Historians criticise Gordon brown as being one of the worst Prime Ministers since the end of WW2

A bunch of Academics has come out and said that Gordon Brown was the third worst PM since the end of the Second World War.

According to a survey of more than one hundred leading academics, reported in the Financial Times (£), only Sir Anthony Eden and Sir Alec Douglas-Home were less impressive.
The academics, all experts in politics and history,

The worst PM since the 17th century would be much closer to the truth.
How many incumbent PM’s have stayed on in Downing Street after conclusively losing a General Election?

From day 1 Gordon Brown was a dead loss, described by Tony Blair as “mad, bad and dangerous” the question must remain why did Blair handover the country to someone he regarded as unbalanced? hahahahaha!

[soloman]

"A Party without a purpose!".... probably at this time, especially when some professional Historians criticise Gordon brown as being one of the worst Prime Ministers since the end of WW2

A bunch of Academics has come out and said that Gordon Brown was the third worst PM since the end of the Second World War.

According to a survey of more than one hundred leading academics, reported in the Financial Times (£), only Sir Anthony Eden and Sir Alec Douglas-Home were less impressive.
The academics, all experts in politics and history,

The worst PM since the 17th century would be much closer to the truth.
How many incumbent PM’s have stayed on in Downing Street after conclusively losing a General Election?

From day 1 Gordon Brown was a dead loss, described by Tony Blair as “mad, bad and dangerous” the question must remain why did Blair handover the country to someone he regarded as unbalanced? hahahahaha!

How right you are!

[radical change]

my answer: yes

[soloman]

To be fair this does seem to be part of the on-going pattern, a sheen of the new while the old repeats itself....a long period of government followed by a re-invention with a few false starts, but ultimately the Tories build up the coffers and become misers and then Labour spend it all and then some, but create benefits for all at some point. Both do well and then go too far. Will coalition stop that?

Of course it will, that is why in the short-term at least we welcome it.
Jury is still out on Google Page Ranking or AV or whatever we ultimately end up considering!

[DaveUK]

Given that the purpose of Labour is now to oppose the current government, then the answer should be no it is not without a purpose. Will it fullfill that purpose is another question, to which I think the answer is a resounding no. British politics has long since lost it's adversarial element. There's little to choose between any of them anymore, which is self evident from the constant sickly syrupy suckng up that goes in the coalition right now.

[Streetwalker]

The party called Labour is unfit for purpose.With the demise of the industries associated with labour support they find themselves without the traditional following.They, over the years in a vain bid to keep control have moved to become the party of the unemployed,the social spongers.council employees and public sector. In fact anyone that takes a living off the taxpaying ,hard working private sector. Labour and all they now stand for have become the enemy to the man in the street. They must never be allowed to gain power again

[soloman]

The party called Labour is unfit for purpose.With the demise of the industries associated with labour support they find themselves without the traditional following.They, over the years in a vain bid to keep control have moved to become the party of the unemployed,the social spongers.council employees and public sector. In fact anyone that takes a living off the taxpaying ,hard working private sector. Labour and all they now stand for have become the enemy to the man in the street. They must never be allowed to gain power again

Trouble is Labour's power has nominally come from the trade unions; they are still lurking in the wings for the opportunity to push 'their' party back into power.

[Nicholas]

Labour are a convoluted joke propped up by the trade unions. For the last thirteen years we were run by a bunch of student activists and left wing agitators. I work in quite heavy industry and the majority of the older generation 40 + are labour men through and through. Even though Labour pissed all over them for thirteen years while they were in power they still cling onto the idea that they are the party of the working man. They are all trade union members also. Labour should serve a purpose to represent the so called 'working classes'(although is there such a thing anymore?) who are their supporters. What worries me is that they would ever get anywhere near power again. I had a look at the leadership contest and realised they are dead in the water. Its a toss up between people who are hanging onto the failed legacy of Blair and that boring marxoid Brown and a bird who hate white males called Diane Abbot, who likes to scream racism when things arent going her way. I dont think they will even be a creditable oppositionas they have lost all direction.

[DaveUK]

The party called Labour is unfit for purpose.With the demise of the industries associated with labour support they find themselves without the traditional following.

The industries that the Labour pary traditionally stood for have not "demised", the world still mines coal, makes steel, cars, ships, building products etc..........we just sold it all off in favor of psudeo middle class suit wearing telesales people trained to talk people out of their savings and pensions.

[DaveUK]

Labour are a convoluted joke propped up by the trade unions. For the last thirteen years we were run by a bunch of student activists and left wing agitators. I work in quite heavy industry and the majority of the older generation 40 + are labour men through and through. Even though Labour pissed all over them for thirteen years while they were in power they still cling onto the idea that they are the party of the working man. They are all trade union members also. Labour should serve a purpose to represent the so called 'working classes'(although is there such a thing anymore?) who are their supporters. What worries me is that they would ever get anywhere near power again. I had a look at the leadership contest and realised they are dead in the water. Its a toss up between people who are hanging onto the failed legacy of Blair and that boring marxoid Brown and a bird who hate white males called Diane Abbot, who likes to scream racism when things arent going her way. I dont think they will even be a creditable oppositionas they have lost all direction.

Wow, something we almost agree on. I too worked in heavy industry for most of my working life (mining and building products). I stopped supporting Labour when John Smith and Tony Blair started expelling real Labour politicians and members from the party in the mid 90s.
Unlike the Peter Hitchens' of this world though, I didn't see it as a reason to turn to the right. Although if you listen to people like Peter Hitchens he's still very "socialist" on a lot of issues.

[Streetwalker]

The industries that the Labour pary traditionally stood for have not "demised", the world still mines coal, makes steel, cars, ships, building products etc......

They have in the UK which was my point

[soloman]

They have in the UK which was my point

We don't in the UK which is the problem.

[DaveUK]

They have in the UK which was my point

My appologies, I didn't make my point very well. What I meant was that demise suggests those traditional industries are now surplus to requirements. The fact is that Britian still uses those industries as much as ever, if not more so. We drive more cars, we demand more electricity which demands more coal, we buy more goods which means we need more ships to carry them, we have more poeple that need houses.
The problem is we've either defered everything or farmed out everything abroard.

[crazylilting]

I don't want to seem Naive but isn't the purpose of any political party to appeal to the most voters. What makes anyone think that any political party has any other agenda other then getting a paying job? If you were a politician without a seat what would you do?

[DaveUK]

I don't want to seem Naive but isn't the purpose of any political party to appeal to the most voters. What makes anyone think that any political party has any other agenda other then getting a paying job? If you were a politician without a seat what would you do?

This is part of the reason why so many people are disolussioned with politics, because so many of them simply seek election at any cost, including their principles.

[soloman]

This is part of the reason why so many people are disolussioned with politics, because so many of them simply seek election at any cost, including their principles.

Tony Blair (and the last Labour government) being classic examples!

[crazylilting]

Tony Blair (and the last Labour government) being classic examples!

Question is why were they so popular? I've only been in the UK for 4 years and of course they weren't that appealing when i arrived.

[Opinionated]

Question is why were they so popular? I've only been in the UK for 4 years and of course they weren't that appealing when i arrived.

The short answer to that is because of the proceeding 18 years of Tory government! This country has always swung between one of two Parties, before Labour's victory post WW2 it was between the Tories (Conservatives) and the Whigs (Liberals), it's the case in most Western democracies, the difference was before 1979 we never had the same level of voter apathy (I suppose in part people didn't take suffrage for granted) meaning that those who bother to vote either vote for the devil they know or according to the last Party that they benefited under, people very rarely issue vote. Also I think people thought NuLab couldn't do any worse (and at their height, before Iraq etc., I guess you could say that was true). The only way to break such a stale mate is to introduce Google Page Ranking and I suppose we'll have to see if the LibDems manage to actually play a part on the current coalition and in the very least get a change in that direction, if not then our only hope will be that Labour can somehow rise from the ashes to give a viable alternative.

[Cirrus]

Rubbishing 'mandy' i think is indicative of the type of people we had governing us. he had been a disgraced politician twice before if i am not mistaken and they let him keep his head down for a couple of years in the cauldron of corruption the EU then when they cynically though we had all forgotten they bought him back as some sort of hero. Now instead of hanging their heads in shame at the mess they have left this country in they are suggesting that the measures the current government are taking are to aggressive. If that is the case and they are to much too quickly why, in the best interests of the country they were serving, did they not start the recovery process earlier. In truth they are as devoid of ideas for creating wealth as they are acting responsibly and prudently with the nation’s finances.

[Cirrus]

Do you not think that power corrupts most human beings and most of the Labour leadership at the moment I would say are in that state. It takes a special person to be a true socialist and there aren’t any in the Labour party and even less in the Trade unions. Most of the TU leadership have their hands in the trough showing little regard for the 'rank and file' they are supposed to represent. When I was much younger the two people who disillusioned me the most were Arthur Scargil and Derek Hatten. Was there ever men more out for their own gain than these two shysters? Both proclaimed to be standing for the working man/woman both simultaneously lining their own pockets as best they could.

[uncon]

I was watching again 'A very British Coup'.

Yes it is incredibly biased to the left wing etc etc, but what struck me was that it assumes a level of naivety that the voter simply does not have today. It assumes that in voting for 'the man of the people', he/she could remain incorrupt or become corrupted.

The fact remains that you cannot balance a country as you would a household, and to pretend you can is disingenous. To start from scratch with socialism is one thing....but we all have to deal with what we are given, rather than what we would wish, in the same way as we accept the faults on those we fall in love with....but you can't divorce a country because you found out she had a padded bra and a huge credit card debt!

Labour, under Ed hasn't stated a purpose. prior to that Harriet Harman stated their purpose was to 'be in opposition'. Nobody is giving a way forward or any form of true policy, and to be honest, they don't need to yet.

They need to bide their time a little and for gods sake get the little **** a public profile that equates to more than shafted his brother and then did bugger all!

[Don]

Although if you listen to people like Peter Hitchens he's still very "socialist" on a lot of issues.

Forgive my ignorance on all Hitchen's 'issues', but perhaps he has seen the light, in that neither side is always correct on all issues.

We never do our countries a favor when we stick to party in disregard of issues and conscience.

[Midas]

Do you not think that power corrupts most human beings and most of the Labour leadership at the moment I would say are in that state. It takes a special person to be a true socialist and there aren’t any in the Labour party and even less in the Trade unions. Most of the TU leadership have their hands in the trough showing little regard for the 'rank and file' they are supposed to represent. When I was much younger the two people who disillusioned me the most were Arthur Scargil and Derek Hatten. Was there ever men more out for their own gain than these two shysters? Both proclaimed to be standing for the working man/woman both simultaneously lining their own pockets as best they could.

Hi Cirrus, and welcome to the Politics Forum!

To start with you might like to read the extended "Welcome" message in the Rules and Guidelines section of the forum, which also includes a full version of the Forum Rules.

Knowing what’s appropriate to say and post and what isn’t can save everyone a great deal of hassle, and as such you might also find the Guide to Good Posting useful. If you’re unfamiliar with the type of forum software we use here, a brief guide to using it can be found here. Please respect other people’s views here; they mightn’t be the same as yours, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they’re wrong, just that they're different.

If you need help with anything at all to do with the forum, feel free to contact me, or one of the other moderators, via a personal message; our details can be found here, listed as "Minister" and “Junior Minister”.

Perhaps you’d care to formally introduce yourself, which you can do here, or optionally tell us a little bit more about yourself here.

Now, as far as your point is concerned, and whether it's an accurate assessment or not I don't know, but I'd say that the logic behind your observation that it's those on the left side of the political fence who are the most corrupted is based on the fact that there's a significant difference between what they've believed for a large part of their life, i.e., the standard socialist ideology that people should be equal and wealth should be distributed amongst all, and the realities of their position when they realise that power and position does indeed bring personal rewards. On the other hand, your average right-winger has always believed that to be the case, so there's far less of a temptation to take advantage of the situation, and of course there's no ideological conflict in taking such advantage, hence nothing for the media in particular to comment on.

[Cirrus]

Thank you for your kind comments and direction. I am indeed a newbee to this blogging lark albeit perhaps I should have taken more notice of the small print. Having briefly read it, it would appear you have issue with my comments regarding the two individuals mentioned, duly noted.

Regarding your last paragraph my reply was in response to a post by Nicholas where I merely shared my opinions on the thoughts laid out before me. My comments were directed at the Labour party leadership and the associated body the Trade Union leadership as this is a Blog about the Labour Party. I was certainly not seeking to suggest that just because they are left they are more or less susceptible to corruption. Indeed the ability to be corrupted is a human one not a political one.

For what it is worth and this is probably not the correct place to add this comment but I will anyway. In my opinion Socialism is similar to religion, They are both tools used but a group or an individual to control a larger group. Probably the only true socialist and uncorrupted leader was Jesus Christ who, at least on the face of it, not only believed in true equality and socialism but as a leader was prepared to SERVE his followers. I am not aware of one system of socialism that has existed in Human history that has not had as an integral part of it a ‘higher echelon’ containing the leadership. This leadership have not been slow to avail themselves of the benefits of their position. In other words equality is only for the masses. The only reason I would have more time for the right wing and capitalism is that in the real world, when the rubber hits the road and ideology is confined to books, ultimately, in the majority of social communities the same principles apply but without the facade of pseudo equality. The strong the loud and the wise rise to the top with the benefits and the weak, the sick and the lazy ends up at the bottom of the pile.

[Midas]

For what it is worth and this is probably not the correct place to add this comment but I will anyway. In my opinion Socialism is similar to religion, They are both tools used but a group or an individual to control a larger group. Probably the only true socialist and uncorrupted leader was Jesus Christ who, at least on the face of it, not only believed in true equality and socialism but as a leader was prepared to SERVE his followers. I am not aware of one system of socialism that has existed in Human history that has not had as an integral part of it a ‘higher echelon’ containing the leadership. This leadership have not been slow to avail themselves of the benefits of their position. In other words equality is only for the masses. The only reason I would have more time for the right wing and capitalism is that in the real world, when the rubber hits the road and ideology is confined to books, ultimately, in the majority of social communities the same principles apply but without the facade of pseudo equality. The strong the loud and the wise rise to the top with the benefits and the weak, the sick and the lazy ends up at the bottom of the pile.

In general I quite agree with your assessment here, with the exception that as a lifelong atheist I have no belief in religion and have very strong doubts that Jesus even existed as a real person, but this isn't the place to discuss that - it's been done several times in other threads anyway.

Socialism, on which the Labour Party is based, is indeed mainly a theory, a theory (simplistically) formed around the false premise that all people are equal and that no one should 'rise' above the others. This is plainly contrary to human nature in two fundamental respects:

1. We're all born with very different degrees of intelligence, ability, drive, determination and leadership qualities, and;
2. People will naturally form themselves into one or more forms of hierarchical structure, with those who can do and can lead at the top and those who can't or won't populating increasingly lower layers.

To deny this is to deny human nature, and as you rightly point out, in the real world there's always this division, even in the most rabid of socialist countries there are layers of power and authority with those at the top benefiting most whilst those at the bottom answer to their every whim, and without the option of rising to the top themselves, as is eminently possible in a capitalist society which mirrors human nature and the way it operates.