To be totally amazed at the sudden change in the language coming out of the Labour Party since the election.

[sunshield]

It seems the labour party have finally seen the light !.

The labour party have suddenly morphed in to a 'centre right' party reading their latest proposals . The blame therefore has to be put on the likes of Burnham , Cooper Et all for allowing Milliband to take the party down the path tothe devasting defeat.

These senior members of the labour party fully backed Milliband's crazy ideas , when obviously knowing they wewre totally out of touch .

Examples of the totally different views and 'common sense' coming out of the labour party now can be seen by the fact are finally . accepting they spent too much, a belief in reducing welfare spending a realisation that the 'mansion tax' idea reeks of 'politics of envy' . The most extraordinary one though is they now realise, whether you believe in the Uk being in Euorpe or not a grown up debate is needed hence a referendum is essential.

Why or why did these senoir labour people go along with Ed Milibands ideas, like members of FIFA going along with Sepp Blatter.

I'm actually appalled by what's happened in the Labour party since the election.

I'm actually appalled by what's happened in the Labour party since the election.

Why? Would you prefer a 1983-style manifesto, followed by a defeat which would make 1983 look like 1997?

They've moved to the centre because they lost the election so spectacularly, so something had to change. The mansion tax was the politics of envy, they did spend too much when they were in power and they did create a welfare system that disincentivised (is that a word?) work. It's good that they have realised this. What's bad for them is that there won't be any distinction between them and the Tories very soon, and they will end up losing their place as opposition.

I want a proper socialist party, not one setting its stall out as a watered down Tory party. That's why I'm appalled. The leadership candidates are falling over themselves to show how Tory like they can be.

Me too, sooty.

They're just Tory-lite, rather than standing up for sensible cuts that aren't attacking the most vulnerable in society over and over.

But every thread here has various disabled people, carers, etc posting saying what the cuts have done to them, how the stress has caused more disability, and more services to be needed, and what it's like to have their care/help taken away.

And people still continue to be for welfare cuts, and pushing for Labour to follow suit. It's just so depressing.

Nothing has changed right now apart from dropping opposition to a referendum.
Everything else is just leadership campaigning. Ed Miliband was presented as awkward and North London policy wonk by the media.

I want a proper socialist party

You want, then, a permanent Tory government.

There have only been five Labour governments that have been elected with majorities.

Almost no-one who voted in 1945 is alive, and the conditions of the 1945 election (for example, a massive number of men returning from war service) are unlikely to be repeated.

In 1966 Wilson, hardly a socialist, was elected on a "white heat of technology" platform against an exhausted conservative government.

1997, 2001, 2005 I suspect aren't to your taste.

The only time Labour have run on a hard-left manifesto, 1983, they were annihilated, and at a time when their built-in advantages were much higher (far larger union membership).

Which of these events makes you think that a "socialist" Labour Party isn't, in fact, a recipe for permanent Tory rule?

But every thread here has various disabled people, carers, etc posting saying what the cuts have done to them

Most people vote for their own interests, not those of others. The 2015 Labour Party manifesto had nothing for the vast majority of the population.

If Labour's policies shift closer to those of the Tories, what would be the point in voting for them? Isn't the point of the opposition to be different to the party you're opposing?

Most people vote for their own interests, not those of others
Sadly true. We have the government we have because society is inherently selfish and I agree that that is unlikely to change. However if the Labour party continue to be Tory lite it might as well not exist.

text i would have voted SNP but im in the South. I voted Green. Could not bring myself to vote Labour and ive never voted Tory.

I've just joined labour. I want to be able to vote in a leader who will offer a strong opposition that isn't tory lite.

I fear it may be easier to set up my own party.

Proper Labour or Props Labour

Isn't the point of the opposition to be different to the party you're opposing?

No party sets out with the intention of being the opposition: they set out with the intention of forming a government. Unfortunately, too many Labour members enjoy self-righteous opposition, which gives them the pleasure of being true to their ideals, rather than making the hard decisions to actually be in office.

“I’ll tell you what happens with impossible promises. You start with far-fetched resolutions. They are then pickled into a rigid dogma, a code, and you go through the years sticking to that, out-dated, mis-placed, irrelevant to the real needs, and you end in the grotesque chaos of a Labour council – a Labour council – hiring taxis to scuttle round a city handing out redundancy notices to its own workers”.

What's the point of getting into government if you've sold your ethics down the river to get there?

Labour are going to lose their core voters if they continue down this path of toriness. Nobody wants to buy rola cola when they can get the real thing for the same price.

We need the newspapers to be regulated in the same way as TV and labour (or any other party) need to start engaging on the ethics and evidence of policies not just the reactions of the media.

borrowed too much money?
oh, my sides
ever hear of Lehman Bros?
you seriously believe employing teaching assistants caused the global crisis?
don't get made redundant
don't get evicted when your btl landlord cashes in
don't become disabled
big holes in that safety net

What's the point of getting into government if you've sold your ethics down the river to get there?

What's the point of having ethics to please the purest of the pure if you're never going to get into government?

Labour are going to lose their core voters if they continue down this path of toriness.

Labour's core voters are not "socialist", whatever that might mean. Doesn't 1983 teach us anything? And Labour's core voters are not enough to win an election. Don't 2015, or 2010, or 1992, or 1987, teach us anything?

We need the newspapers to be regulated in the same way as TV

Seriously? So you think that East Germany is a model to aspire to? Aside from the fact that the newspapers are last century's problem read by no-one under forty, and that blaming the biassed press for our defeat is the last resort of the deluded, TV and radio are only regulated because broadcast spectrum is a limited public asset. Could you name a democracy which imposes balance requirements on newspapers? Don't you think freedom of the press is a vaguely good thing? Obviously not.

It would also require the UK to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights (not just tear up the UK HRA, but actually withdraw). Article 10, if we're keeping score.

Namechange power above all else then?

If getting into power is the goal above all other considerations then really why are we messing about with democracy? Might as well forgo policy and manifestos and make them fight it out in a pit. It would save money if nowt else.

I'm actually not in favour of press regulation generally but seeing as TV already is and they provide an awful lot of news coverage, why not newspapers too?

I ain't voting for a party without a moral compass. Labour are currently pretending to which is still better than not having one at all.

No party has any moral compass - the Lords, the MP scandal and protection of paedos closed that door long ago ...

I want someone who can sit in their only kitchen in their only house (not one subsidised by the tacpayer) and have a bit of empathy and xommon sense. Just holding down a normal job for a bit would be a start ...

Theknack I think the parties do as an entity. I think it's the career politicians who don't and they steer the party in order to get reelected.

I want to see people who are passionate about what they believe in not people who are saying what they think people want to hear in order to get elected.

If getting into power is the goal above all other considerations

It isn't. But you may have to choose between a compromised, 1997-style Labour Party, or the Tories. The argument that if we couldn't have Benn there was no point in having Healy because we might as well have Thatcher was Labour self-indulgently foisting a dreadful government on people who could have had better.

seeing as TV already is and they provide an awful lot of news coverage, why not newspapers too?

Aside from that pesky Article 10 of the ECHR, are you seriously saying that you want to regulate newspapers so that they are individually politically neutral, as is the case for broadcast TV? No editorials, no op-eds? What do you think the newspaper would contain?

As apposed to now when a select few get to decide what goes in the press and get to decide how the public view various mps etc . Besides I'm taking about balanced articles not censorship. It really isn't that hard.

However, what your saying is that either be right of centre and have your views represented or be anywhere left and have no say. More people voted for traditionally left of centre parties than Tory. I think we need to accept that the country, whether they like it or not, are voting for coalitions and change the voting system accordingly rather than say vote right or don't bother.

They're not far left enough for me. I don't want Tory-lite.

If the Tories move too far to the right and Labour are in the centre-right, Labour would probably win a GE.

The majority of voters don't like either far right or far left. We are a moderate bunch generally. I hope that continues.

Some opportunists like Mendalson are using this as their chance to suggest Labour are unelectable because they have moved too far to the left.
Although some may think this there are many, particularly in Scotland and Wales who voted for "anti-austerity" parties because Labour were not left-wing enough for them.

There were further complicating factors such as where the Liberal democrat vote went.

Milliband actually had a sensible plan which was being referred to as "austerity-lite".

I hope that the Labour party will stick with their basic values and not swing from pillar to post in an attempt to please the electorate.
If they do they may find that they come unstuck.