Labour.

[Workingman]

I would have thought that the last thing it needs is advice from the Dinosaurs of its last government and an untried War Criminal, but there you go.

B'Liar says it should move back to the centre ground when it actually never left.

Mandelson says it should not engage in a beauty contest for its leader: Burnham, Cooper, Umunna, Hunt or the other Miliband. If that's a beauty contest I do not want to set eyes on the ugly ones!

Labour's strongholds are in the North, North East, North West and South Wales yet it is governed by a London Elite. Umunna, Hunt and Miliband. D. are embedded in that elite and Burnham and Cooper have to kowtow to it.

If Labour ever wants to be strong again it has to get back to its roots. With the elite in charge it will never happen and that is not good for the country.

[Diflower]

It does indeed need to get back to its roots WM.
All those people on fb making attacks on a government that was fairly elected would be better off spending their energy lobbying for Labour rather than anti-Tory.

If they could find a leader who could speak as passionately and forcefully as Nicola Sturgeon they'd stand a much better chance not only for the next election but whilst in opposition.
It doesn't mean I agree with the woman's politics but I do admire her attitude and SNP's success is surely down to her and her alone.

[Workingman]

I am not a Labour supporter, but I am only a conservative with a small 'c'.

What has got to me over the past few years, and especially the last few days, is all the in-fighting and back-biting between the Blairites and the Brownites. Labour is effectively two parties in one, even more so than the Tories. Throw in the SNP and the still popular UKIP and the country is left with no coherent opposition.

IMHO the country, and democracy, requires a strong opposition, and that goes regardless of who is in government. For that to now happen Labour needs to sort itself out PDQ. I might be wrong to say this, but for me it has to either cement itself in the centre ground or go back to the left and its core support - it cannot play both ends against the middle.

[Diflower]

Exactly Wm, they're not a proper party at all at the moment, with or without a leader.
They need to decide what they want to stand for and stick to it, then at least the electorate will know what they're voting for or against.

[cromwell]

They seem to have become very arrogant. Perhaps because all their leaders seem to come out of London, from well-to-do backgrounds.

They used to be the party for the working class, I don't know what they are now.

I mean, Eddie Izzard walking around Glasgow wearing lipstick, heels and a skirt? Really?

[Suff]

They used to be the party for the working class, I don't know what they are now

I have been reading and listening to the left bias for weeks now and it has been annoying the hell out of me for some time. So I did a little digging.

We have been hearing about how the "share of the wealth" is now worse than it has ever been.

Really?

So I dug up this document.

I noted whilst reading the long dissertation about how incredibly difficult it was to compare 18th century wealth with 21st century wealth this little snippet.

The relative neglect of human capital differences as a basis for inequality was less serious in a world in which they accounted for only about 15 percent of national income as compared with about 52 percent for Britain today

Let's take that statement and dissect it.

Working class wages were 15% of national income in WW1.

Today working class wages are 52% of national income.

What does that really mean? It means that Labour have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. They have made the working classes middle class as defined by pre WW1 standards.

What are those standards?

They have an income which:

- Allows them to save for their retirement
- Allows them multiple holidays
- Allows them to buy houses
- Allows them to buy cars, TV's, household furniture and a whole gamut of goods which the pre WW1 working class person could never have dreamed of. Then a bicycle was a status symbol.

Prior to WW1 90% of the people of Britain had never travelled more than 10 miles from where they were born.

Today? Labour a party for the working class? The actions of Labour and the consumer market post WW2 has moved the majority of working class firmly into middle class. Is it any wonder that they are confused about who they are and who should vote for them? More than 60% of the population fall into a category which would have been considered "rich" no more than 100 years ago.

How do you play robin hood when you have more "rich" than poor? Especially when you expect the "rich" to vote for you so you can stay in government.

We've seen the end result of that in two catastrophic governments.

First 1975 to 1979. Classic old Labour, 33% base rate tax, 90% super tax and a broken economy. Capital controls to stop money fleeing the country and a complete block in inward investment. 26% inflation and running to the IMF to borrow money to keep the country afloat.

Second 1997 to 2010. Teflon Tony. Don't tax, just spend. When the budget goes negative just borrow. When the markets are uncomfortable about the borrowing, tell them that they're borrowing grows less than economic growth so it's really negative borrowing and will eventually sort itself out. When the economy stops growing LIE YOUR ASS OFF.

Labour was a cure to a very specific problem. Namely that of extreme inequality in the wealth distribution created by the industrial revolution. That is something which is clear from the documents on relative wealth. Whilst the landed gentry were "rich" in relation to those around them, the only super rich were the royals. This changed in the industrial revolution and super rich saw people as "resources" and not people and saw no reason why the resources should receive any more of the profits than it took to live and survive. After all they had been doing that for centuries in the country. Forgetting that in the country they could partake of the bounty they provided to the harvest and that a wise landlord left enough and more for the people on the land.

In fact it was a combination of Labour and the next best thing in the industrial revolution, consumerism, which really dragged us into the 20th century. The advent of consumerism lifted a few of the "super rich" into mega rich, the price being that the "plebs" become more wealthy and have a better life. After all if you don't have the money to buy the goods, then there is no point in creating them. Another step on our evolutionary ladder in the world of democracy.

Of course the super rich are becoming super richer, because the general people are also becoming richer. The more rich we become, the more fantastically rich those who supply our goods become. That is the price of consumerism, the price of our foreign holidays, the price of our media, comfortable warm homes and transport for our families.

Now we find Labour struggling to find the "enemy" to a class of people who have what they have Because of the "enemy". Also this class of people don't want to fund Labour wet dreams, they want to fund their family and comfort. Yes we need the NHS, but no we don't need to keep 25% of the population on free food, drink, fags, drugs and warm comfortable homes with TV's, Satellite, Internet and Sky. After all, what is the point of working all your life to have the same as someone who does not.

For the conservatives it's easy. You make money and they want you to keep as much of it as possible so you can feed the great consumerism engine which makes money for business. So their message never needs to change, it's already changed so much in the last 80 years.

Where do I see Labour going? Well if they can't reinvent themselves then they are destined to diminish like the Whigs (Liberals to you). If you were to look back at Whig policy in the 1800's you might think it somewhere to the right of Thatcher. That is how society changes.

So whilst we still have a large section of the population who still believe that Labour stand for "Working Class", I believe that Labour support today is becoming more about race than it is about class. Which, for me, is somewhat concerning. If you look at where Labour won it's strongest support, the issues are far less about class, money and work and far more about race, culture and attitude.

Personally I'd be happy for Labour to vanish, but I would not be happy without a balancing force to replace them.

How many truly believe that the SNP will disband and break apart into the constituent parties of which it was made up; should it finally achieve it's goal of independence? Then why should we believe that Labour will reinvent itself when it has reached it's original goal.

It's like having a permanent health and safety person in the company. If you have a perfect health and safety record how do they make their bonus? Make stuff up!

[Aggers]

I was a Labour supporter all my working life, but I agree that they have now practically
come to the end of their mission in life. Their only chance of achieving a meaningful role
as a political party is to concentrate on representing present-day working class people.

[Workingman]

Nah. The top down stuff does not work for me.

Way back when, the roughest and toughest guy on the block ruled the day. It happened with the Vikings and the Saxons and then the Danes, then the Normans. They then handed out the land, their only source of income and power, to the Lords of the Manor... and on it went. The workers of the land paying their taxes and tithes kept the Lairds in their riches.

The Industrial Revolution did not come from the descendants of the Lords of the Manor. It came from the brains of those who wanted to make the lives of the workers easier, and make a bit of money as well. Newcomon, Watts, Farraday and their likes were not from the rich elite. They were the ones from humble beginnings but who had the brains the elite lacked to invent the methods and machinery to make lives easier for all, and to make some money into the bargain - it is the same today. The Industrial Revolution was driven by them, not the rich, but they made the rich, richer.

The Labour movement was invented to reduce the ability of the idle rich and the producers of new money from taking advantage of the workers who were producing the goods, services and money of those old and nouveau rich. Is it any wonder they got a following? Today's Labour has lost that, even though it still goes on.

Just to make things clear, I am not against the rich. I couldn't care less if someone is mildly rich, super rich, mega rich or any other combination. They are still controlled by the laws. Bill Gates has to drive on the same side of the road as everyone else. He cant just hop in a plane and fly off - he has to log his flight. He might be able to pay £750 for a steak, but it's still as streak. He can have hundreds of cars but can only drive one and own tens of houses but can only live in one.

Being mega rich has nothing to do with money, it is now nothing more than a number, except from this. Bill Gates could put all his money in a PO savings account and it will 'earn' him more than a thousand workers on average wages will get in a lifetime. Could he ever spend it? No, no matter what he did. Tell me that is right.

Aggers is right, the past is the past, it is today's standards that matter.

[miasmum]

I can't talk as eloquently as you, my political knowledge isn't good enough, but I have been saying this for years. What happened to the working class Labour party my nan supported?

How far back do we have to go to find some traditional Labour MP's, give me some names?

I always felt, love him or loathe him, that John Prescott was one but I may have been wrong

[medsec222]

I have never supported Labour miasmum, but there are some MPs who genuinely support the working class but still recognise that cuts are necessary. One in particular is Frank Field, who did produce a document on welfare reform in Tony Blair's time, but unfortunately he was sacked as it didn't suit his political masters. In my area, George Howarth and Bill Esterson are both good MPs who serve the local community. Although I voted UKIP, I am not too disappointed that Bill is my local MP.