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.

Besides I'm taking about balanced articles not censorship

So it would now be illegal for the Guardian to publish an editorial advising its readers to vote Labour? How is that not censorship?

And you want balance at an article level? Christ, not even the BBC has that obligation.

Censors never admit to censorship. They're always doing it for the audience's good.

I hope that the Labour party will stick with their basic values

1983: 27.6%, 209 seats. And that with the SNP only taking two seats. A similar showing today, assuming Scotland remains mostly SNP, would leave Labour with around 150 seats. For comparison, the Tories won 165 seats in 1997, usually regarded as a catastrophic wipeout which put them out of power for a generation. That's what a "basic values" campaign looks like (and the 1983 manifesto had much that was sensible; it wasn't all madness).

I personally hate any party thinking it somehow is more moral than another.

Somewhere down the line the high morals cost some people a large amount of money and sacrifice and don't end up where they should.

Morals also require value judgements and in multicultural, mixed communities can become very murky.

Namechange I'm assuming then you are campaigning for the rules on broadcasters to be changed? How is a rule applied to channel 5 not censorship but a rule applied to the Timed is?

How is a rule applied to channel 5 not censorship but a rule applied to the Timed is?

I explained why they are different a few postings ago, and Article 10 makes it clear as well. Broadcast frequencies are a limited public good, and therefore it was reasonable to regulate their use in exchange for permission to broadcast. Subsequent judgements have narrowed that restriction, because we are no longer limited to a handful of broadcast channels, and most countries no longer have regulations as tight as ours.

I take it your censorship would extend to Youtube channels, bloggers, Twitter...? Because for a large portion of the population, those are more significant news sources than newspapers.

Article ten freedom of speech has extremely high thresholds before the state can intervene, and "political balance" (which usually means saying things I agree with, and banning things I don't) isn't one of them.

So "censorship" is ok sometimes?

So "censorship" is ok sometimes?

Read the ECtHR judgements.

As I say, what you propose would require the UK to leave the European Convention of Human Rights. There is a narrowly drawn exception for broadcast TV which subsequent judgements have limited. It doesn't apply to newspapers. That's the end of it. What you want requires breaching Article 10.

What I propose would make newspapers and broadcasters the same.

Personally I don't advocate any censorship so thanks for making that assumption but I was surprised to learn in this election that this disparity is what we have currently.

What I propose would make newspapers and broadcasters the same.

What you propose would breach Article 10 of the ECHR and make the British press less free than, for example, Russia under Putin. If you want a state controlled press, why not move to Zimbabwe?

Do you have a working definition for "newspapers", by the way? You're presumably OK with the fact that the Morning Star would be shut down (in a non-censoring way, of course)? Would people still be allowed to sell Socialist Worker? No, I guess not. New Statesman? Spectator? All of them shut down?

What would we be left with? Pravda, I guess.

Personally I don't advocate any censorship

Press regulation is censorship. You can call it what you want: it's censorship. Article 10 gives a qualified exception for broadcast media because of spectrum being limited, but with modern broadcasting (cable, in particular) that exception is being reduced, and properly so.

Soapbox queen - I have done the same

I can't see labour ever moving left unless compulsory voting come in.

The people who most benefit from left wing policies are also the most unlikely to vote.

That is: they choose not to vote. Their choice. Voting is a right, not a duty, and so it should remain.

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

There is Labour's problem in a nutshell. "Ethics". They are a political party FFS, their sole concern should be getting and keeping power, something the Tories are only too well aware of. Many Labour supporters, so far as I can see, want to be able to "vote with a clear conscience" and would rather have purity of dogma than power.

No way is a party with a true socialist policy ever going to be elected in this country imo.

No party today can win by appealing only to its members and core vote. They all need a large slice of the floating voters of the centre, and if Labour shifts to the left, then Gordon Brown may become the Labour equivalent of Asquith - his party's last PM for over 100 years.

Blair and Mandleson may be hate figures to many Labour members but they could win elections and if a political party can't do that it's nothing more than a debating society.

power above all else then?

YES! Why do Labour supporters have an issue with this. I know of no Tory who does and damn few Lib Dems. Only Labour people seem to have this need for their party to be true to some mystical dogma. Politics is about power. Nothing else matters.

Britain is fundamentally a small-c conservative country (possibly apart from some regions in the North, Scotland, and parts of London). Labour won't win again till they realise that.

Ideals are all very well, but only if they're in tune with the instincts of the country. Labour's ideals are not in tune with Britain's instincts, though they are indeed in tune with the instincts of Islington Guardianistas, the MN Boden set, and the BBC.

Liz Kendall has some interesting ideas, and could win over parts of the South. I don't think any of the others can.

Well, OK. But, if you live in a centre right country, what are you going to do? Having said that, if centre ground politics was all about voting for the right wing repeatedly, then the US wouldn't have any democrats. Left of centre parties can do well in this game. They just need to learn how. David Miliband has figured that out. Ed, not so much.

Politics is about power. Nothing else matters

No, if you're on my left, you can sit all alone in a pub in Islington, talking to your shadow about equality.

There are a number of serious problems for the Labour Party not least the fact that in perhaps 50 of the seats they still hold the right Conservative and UKIP hold over 50% of the vote. The Labour party could quite possibly drop to below 200 seats in the 2020 election, if the proposed boundary and seat changes go through. The Labour party have got to model themselves on the Democratic party . This means significantly reducing the union influence or associations with them.

The Labour party have got to stop promoting 1950s type ideas of socialism .

The only thing Ed Milliband did was shore up their vote in Liverpool and parts of the North East. Liverpool is not 'England' . There are a different breed, witnessed by the astounding and out of kilter with the rest of the country Wirral West being a Labour gain. Wirral West should be a comfortable 15000 majority Conservative seat with Grammar schools!.

It is clear the Labour Party were basing their chances of power on the whims and beliefs of "Merseyside". This is where the "Tories" are to blame for everything including Liverpool FC losing...

If Labour don't do something really quickly they are finished. If some of you want a real left wing party, go ahead. They will never be elected.....

The pp is right, dump the unions. They are killing you. And Ed who??

Socialism is dead.

The Labour Party no longer exists, it's merely a figment of everyone's imagination. They're all just standing around looking at each other and mouthing words.

Why on earth they ever elected Miliband is beyond anyone's understanding. The only explanantion is that they didn't want to sort out the mess after the 2010 election. It's all very well saying the main aim isn't to get into power. That's fine for the greens and small parties. I think Labour might have to totally re-invent itself even with a new name if they have got any hope of being elected.

And all this Blair bashing. He got them into power and now he's the devil incarnate. Seems they're on the path of self-destruct yet again. Hope it's Andy Burnham. He's the only one who will appeal to people that didn't vote Labour last time.

I think that to have a country that has a more equal and fair society, it needs to have socialist principles.

People forget how much society has improved since the set-up of the welfare state and NHS. We take these for granted, and now are in danger of losing them.

Society has improved in many ways. But we are more right-wing, and everyone is looking out for number one. We need to have more cooperative and inclusive policies for a better society.

Maybe a benign dictatorship would be best to give the people what they need but refuse to vote for.

The reality is that England (I can't speak for the rest of the UK) is, with the exceptions of the post-industrial North and the wealthy bien-pensants of London, a centre-right country. I defy you to show me a government that's been elected in the last 35 years that wasn't centre-right.

The NHS and welfare state were/are indeed great achievements. However it feels like they have become too big and too expensive and thats why people are less enthusiastic now.
Healthcare for the sick and benefits for those who have lost their jobs or are unable to work are a far cry from boob jobs and stomach stapling on the NHS and benefits as a lifestyle choice.