The Labour Party....really?

[BechuanaGirl]

I moved to Britain from Botswana when I was 16 back in 2005 for educational purposes. In all the time I've been here, I still fail to understand some of the....call it 'opinions' of the British, including the outward support for the Labour Party and democratic socialism. I don't want to have a political argument, merely an education as to why people support the Labour Party. Because looking at the facts, every time Labour has been in power for an extended period of time (two terms plus), the economy has collapsed. And the Labour administrations have in my mind introduced no progressive legislation (except for homosexuality, which was proposed by a Conservative MP, abortion and the minimum wage). They seem to be a total write off, even for socialists. And now they are being downtrodden and proven wrong by Conservative market reforms (Ed Balls said it wouldn't work, and it has ) So could Labour supporters illustrate to me why they support the party, because I'm totally lost as to why. Apologies if my spelling is poor!

grimble you honestly think people vote Labour because of the name Labour? Really?

Oh maybe it's the pretty colour they use, or the lovely little flower...

Okay, I'm a Labour voter and also a member. For me, it's a bit like religion - you choose the version that you fit most comfortably with. So in my case, I am a left-winger and my ideologies and moral compass fits best with Labour.

Currently, I don't agree with all of their proposed policies and I don't think they are vociferous enough in Opposition but overall, I can't see myself ever moving away from being an inherent leftie.

I do wish they would get rid of ed Milliband as leader though- he doesnt hold much clout.

I would have liked to have seen someone like Alan Johnson as leader of Labour party

Yes Jacqueline I do. It's knee jerk. They think Labour means it's the party of the workers (as opposed to Tories being for the rich). You get knee-jerk Tories in just the same way. Knee-jerk Tories confuse Conservatism with being aspirational or for traditionalists.

Likewise lots of people vote for a party because it's what their parents always did or don't vote a party because their parents did - and they think their parents are dicks!

Not everyone who goes into a polling booth is a deep philosophical thinker.

So that's not just the name then is it? That's people voting Labour because of the history of the party and what they believe they represent because of that history.

I agree a lot of people vote a certain way just because their parents did, although I think this happens a lot less now than it used to.

Patronising much grimble?

Who do you vote for and why?

I stand by what I said Jacqueline. It's as much about the name i.e. Labour = has to be for the working man/woman, Conservative = has to be for the better off and traditional, when the things they do in Government are quite often not in line with what people think they stand for.

TheGreatHunt. It's not patronising - it's just being honest.

What proportion of voters would you say honestly read all the manifestos, listen to most of the debates, read a lot of political articles etc?

As for who I vote for…. My first election was in 1964 (you had to be 21 then to vote) and in the 11 or 12(?) subsequent elections I've voted for all three main parties at one time or another. What about you, since you are making it personal?

Eh?

What have the Conservatives done that is any better for the economy than what Labour did? As far as I can see they are basing the whole growth of the economy on making sure people are up to their eyes in debt in order to buy overpriced housing and then they can claim the economy is booming. This is surely the most disastrous and short sighted policy ever.

It's actually very very simple.

The vast majority of Labour voters vote Labour because they vote Labour and have always done so.

I bet most of them couldn't name a single policy proposed by Ed Miliband.

They vote Labour because their father voted Labour and Grandad voted Labour. The word on the street is that the Tories are rich snob boys who only look after number one.

It's fairly common knowledge that entire elections are won by a small percentage of swing voters who will change their vote. Very little effort is spent by any of the major parties on those core voters who will always vote the same.

Nice guy - thanks for explaining that so simply. It's fairly common knowledge that patronising fellow posters is not the most persuasive tactic.

I am not patronising anyone. If you don't believe me go try it. Go ask a few friends/family who vote Labour to name a single policy by Ed. See how many know. I'd wager most won't be able to name a single one.

Come election time, have a look around at the electoral map. A lot of constituencies never change hands and there you will find few resources deployed. So find a a Labour stronghold and you'll barely see any Conservative or Lib Dem campaigning. Nor will you see any heavyweight politicians fighting the incumbent.

Then find a constituency which is on the border line.....the difference is stark.

What would be interesting, is seeing what cuts the Conservatives make, when they don’t inherit economic disasters from Labour and instead inherit the type of economy Labour took over in 1997 with a huge Blair majority, to mould society exactly how they wanted – with probably the best decade for over 100-years, with the money to solve most of the Uk’s social problems, before their financial/economic crash, 10-years later, when inequality had RISEN in the UK under socialist management.

For the record Brown was FOR loose financial regulation along the lines of Greenspan in America and in 1997 took bank/City regulation away from the Bank of England and formed a new regulatory ‘tripartite’, that included the BoE, but also the UK Treasury he controlled and the new FSA he formed, with too wide a brief, from garage forecourts guarantees to City Hedge Funds.

This was key to the financial collapse as the FSA had too much to do and has since apologised for dropping the regulatory ball, as did Brown for encouraging looser bank regulation which led to the massive growth in bank balance sheets from 1997. Blaming the Tories for anything after 1997, when Mr Brown didn’t listen to a word they, or anything Blair said, is rather disingenuous.

Labour had no idea how to fix their mess by the 2010 election, other than promise in their manifesto they’d cut less, pay more interest charges on our increasing national debt (currently over £50 billion a year) and INCREASE TAXES more – so their ‘Plan B’ in a economic basket case economy, was to TAX the UK to economic growth, similar to 1979.

Isit - what did the Tories say after 1997? I'm no cheerleader for Brown, but which Tories were lobbying for tightening the fiscal regulatory system or criticising the bonus culture in the banks, or complaining about house price inflation? I'm not picking a fight (I'm pretty non-partisan, politically), just interested how you formed that view.

Ohmymimi…hello there, I think that you have raised two points here, the first being how I formed my view, the second being why wasn’t the opposition party to blame when not in government.

Firstly Brown’s actions are facts, from the following of ex Fed Chairman Greenspans doctrine of looser financial regulation (as they were gradually repealing the Glass – Steagall? Act of the early 1930’s bit by bit) to the taking away of sole financial oversight of the Boe to a tripartite system where he effectively controlled 2/3rds of the regulators – and admitted that they should have seen bank lending ratios from the low to mid 30’s to mid 40’s, as a huge danger signal.

Secondly, whether you believe opposition parties trying to persuade ‘the clunking fist’ of Brown, who had proclaimed ‘the end of boom and bust’, CAN be responsible for a governing party with huge majorities of over 120-seats and voices of their own, or not - the fact was that after 1997 the Conservative Party was decimated in terms of seats/leaders, for years.

Let us not forget that the decade to 2007, was a global boom of consumption/debt, and happened very slowly and if you ever listen to PMQT, if you honestly believe Tory warnings of too much lending growth wouldn’t have caused a riot from the much larger parliamentary Labour Party, then you don’t follow too closely. As to the house market, it was a supply and demand situation and no one in the Tory camp knew Labour’s 2004 immigration policy on numbers.

There is one example of Tory warnings going unheeded, when Mr Brown sold a lot of our gold at a 20-year low price. I believe it was Tory Peter Tapsell mentioned it was a mistake, along with the BoE and City, the negative response was a matter of public record.