Labour has lost the election, what now?

[Isitmebut]

After 13-years of a New Labour, and trying from 2010 a New-Old Labour as demanded by their core vote, what now?

Commentators talk of the political 'centre', 'centre left' and 'far left' - where is Labour's next direction of travel, who within will take them there, will they still need to keep the trade unions sweet?

Indeed do the trade union barons having brought in THEIR Miliband brother, funded/sponsored the offices of the shadow cabinet and most Labour MPs, and dictated most of the policies of the past 5-years, bear any responsibility for Labour's current loss?

Interesting times.

You are correct, labour voters don't vote.

A volunteer posting leaflets saw them being put in the recycling in the most deprived areas. People in deprived areas also had a low turnout percentage at the count.

There has been no rise of UKIP. They only won one seat and he was a sitting ex Tory. They aren't the reason labour lost.

English labour could do with learning from the snp about how to appeal to urban & rural, rich & poor- universalism. They fought with the snp over this and look who won.

'Britain 'is suffering a huge loss of faith in its institutions': Trust in all politicians has slumped to an all-time low, say researchers'

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2296085/Britain-suffering-huge-loss-faith-institutions-Trust-politicians-slumped-time-low-say-researchers.html

This is the white elephant in the room. We don't trust them - the charities, the bigwigs, the BBC, the political class, the media, the banks, the hospitals, everything.

Any party that can win our trust will win elections. We have more faith in Cameron than Miliband, but we don't think much of Cameron either. Here is Richard Littlejohn in today's Daily Mail on why Cameron won and what "was in it for us"

"So what’s in all this for the English voters who have given Cameron his majority?

Not only will we get the EU vote the other parties would have denied us; the Human Rights Act will be scrapped; the low-paid will be taken out of tax altogether, millions of hard-pressed middle-income earners will be taken out of the 40p band and the top rate won’t rise to an enterprise-sapping 50 per cent.

We’ve also been spared the mansion tax and the bullying bureaucracy and attack on civil liberties and free speech which would have come with a recovery-wrecking Labour/SNP set-up.

For that we can thank the sensible voters of Middle England, however reluctant many of us may have felt when voting Tory.

Time to stop holding our noses and breathe a deep sigh of relief."

www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3074274/Scottish-Stalinists-Dave-s-lucky-bunny-RICHARD-LITTLEJOHN-gives-view-Cameron-s-narrow-victory.html

It's not that people like Cameron, he only won because he was better than the alternative.

'You are correct, labour voters don't vote.'

They are not Labour voters, they are voters. That is the mistake Labour make. They took the Scottish people for granted and thought they were their voters. They took their Northern heartlands for granted and thought they were their voters, but now they have UKIP on their tails and by 2020, they wil face a huge shock in the North of England because their London metropolitan elite took those voters for granted and thought that they were Labour voters and not just voters.

Claig I like you a lot you know, even in your previous posts before the election, I could see sense in your UKIP ramblings. Not because I believe in anything you say about Farage or UKIP and I don't quite believe that Labour needs to radicalise. But you are very astute.

People don't believe socialism pays. We need to hammer it home in a sensible, iron-clad way that will put money in people's pockets and create a fairer system that can be accountable to the general public.

Blair got us elected but then forgot he was meant to represent the workers. Not the working class but people who work. By providing real opportunities to work, by making work pay, by making work provide a standard of life for everyone.

Some Blairite said today that we need to be "economically competent and socially responsible". Yes exactly. But Blair never achieved that and a move back to Blair would be more disastrous than a move to the left.

'There has been no rise of UKIP. They only won one seat and he was a sitting ex Tory. They aren't the reason labour lost.'

The rise of UKIP is the story of 2014, a party of "fruitcakes" that won the European elections, won a landlside in Clacton and now took 3.8 million votes, more than the SNP, Plaid and the Greens combined and more than the LibDems to become Britain's third largest party by vote share.

By 2020, it will be much bigger because it meets a need, it opposes our political class.

'a move back to Blair would be more disastrous than a move to the left.'

Yes because Blair is just Tory-lite. Blair was Thatcher's heir and Cameron is Blair's heir. It is almost a continuum. No one will vote for Blairism because Tory-lite will not put more money in their pockets than Tory. Labour have to be far more imaginative, far more daring, having to offer us more, something better.

'They aren't the reason labour lost.'

Some analysts are saying that the reason the Tories took Ed Balls's scalp is because of UKIP. UKIP took some of Labour's working class vote and the Tories knocked him out.

Claig in Morley and Outwood, Ed Balls only lost by around 400 votes. I think Labour had an increase of 0.4 and Conservatives had an increase of 3.6. It was always a marginal seat. Why do you feel that UKIP took Labour votes?

I read it in an article today, but you may be right about the figures and UKIP not making much difference there.

Ukip took on the Bnp voters.

I saw a table somewhere (and I can't find it again which is really frustrating me) that showed that the swing from Lab to UKIP was far smaller than the swing from Con to UKIP.

Not surprising really. Not to me anyway.

What I feel is the real issue is why Labour didn't get the Libdem voters.

'What I feel is the real issue is why Labour didn't get the Libdem voters.'

The Daily Mail articles say it is because of fear of the SNP and also the economy

Claig ... Labour cannot live/govern on those past laurels, especially having had 13-years in power to change the lives of the poor/working class and blew it.

And just imagine, the Tories now have five more years to change the lives of the poor and working class for the worse! Let's see how many they can kill.

Labour had no clue how to fix their mess in 2010 and in 2015, Miliband and his university theorists had no idea how to run an economy - as proved by that bottom wipe of a manifesto, anyone with half a commercial brain, would see more holes in than swiss cheese.

So how could Labour pan-holing the economy again, have helped 'the workers'?

Until a Labour Party works out what went wrong for the PRIVATE SECTOR in the 1970's, what went wrong due to their policies with in the PRIVATE SECTOR in their last 13-years administration, what State Controls would have meant in the next 5-years- and finally understand the UK has no god given right to jobs, Labour can never represent 'workers' - as they won't HAVE jobs that also happen to FUND the public sector/welfare etc.

I agree Isitmebut and that is why they are finished and will never win again unless the Tories get as arrogant as they have sometimes done in the past and allow Labour back in. A Labour in the centre, in their suits, cannot beat the Tories ever. They now need PR voting and some new thinking that is real left if they are to offer anything new.

Claig .... I would argue that the Conservative (arrogant or not) did not "let in" Labour in 1997; Blair (and Brown adopting Conservative 1997 spending/debt reduction plans) after 18-years, finally convinced the voters that they had changed from the tax high, spend badly party of the 1970's.

And the problem then and now (especially in Scotland), is that far too many voters don't want Captain Sensible in charge of the nations finances, so in 1997 a Conservative Party was seen as stale, fighting amongst itself over Europe so Blair's 'change' mantra resonated with voters with a big bang - hence a 166 seat Labour majority, when the economy was being competently run.

In Scotland, this ridiculous notion that to balance the UK's books from a £157 bil annual Labour overspend, it is called "austerity", proves that any fool of a politician can spend money we haven't got - and they CAN fool most of their citizens, all of the time.

This country has had a voting systems favouring the Labour party by around 20-seats for years, that is going to change - with loads to do over the next 5-years including a potential earthquake EU Referendum (that if a leave vote will mean huge changes to our constitution over a few years) - so if the Conservative even looking into PR this parliament, when their constitutional workload could increase dramatically, it would be mad.

Let the Conservatives live or die by what they achieve this parliament, but whatever it is it will be light years better than 2010, a lot better than 2015 - just in time for other parties to screw it up and concentrate of PR from 2020.

No one throws out an incumbent for Bambi and his progressive new untried, untested team of Oxbridge graduates who have never run a business and couldn't run a knees-up in a brewery and who say they have changed ther spots unless they are fed up to the back teeth of the incumbent, whose economic record was OK.

That is what happened to the Tories in 1997. Bambi won a landslide and the Oxbridge graduates thought it was their good work but it was because we the people had had enough.

'This country has had a voting systems favouring the Labour party by around 20-seats for years'

Yes and the BBC have been right behind them for years. Let's see if the Tories have the guts to slash the BBC as Farage would do.

The problem Labour has is that how ever many business suits they wear, no one thinks they do business better than the Tories - and big business and most certainly small business generally agrees. We don't trust Labour. We know those inexperienced W1A university graduates who have never run a business know all the BBC spin but they will tax us and take it out on us for daring to put a patio in our gardens or daring to stick our necks above the economic parapet.

"What's in it for us?"

More taxes, more regulations, more political correctness, less civil liberties and less free speech.

No thanks, as Richard Littlejohn said we'll hold our noses and vote Tory or some of us will vote UKIP and vote for change.

The Labour Party has only one message. They are more "caring", they are more "fair".

Well guess what, we don't "care", life's not "fair" and we don't want those metropolitan millionaires from publc schools and Oxbridge to take it out on us and right all the problems of the world by taking money out of our pockets while they have trusts in Liechenstein and send their children to public schools.

Claig .... "economic record was OK",

but too many forgot that under Labour in 1979, the Minimum rate of income tax was 32%, the higher income tax rate was 60 odd %, any income on non earnings was over 90% - and Corporation Tax killing businesses/job creation 50%.

After 18-years the economy (in 1997) was far more robust, as if hadn't of been, Labour wouldn't have lasted 13-years, or held off significantly raising taxes to pay down the annual deficit - as if a Labour government was NOT going to cut its fat government, and reduce the budget deficit by half as promised in their 2010 manifesto - only huge tax rises would have done that from 2010, or even 2015.

I suspect that the 1970's 'lite' rhetoric coming out of Presedenti Milibanditito and partner Sturgevita, woke up many a sleeping voter, not just those of a certain age (ahem) who lived through the 1970's in despair - seeing the country annually go down the drain with no apparent 'change' at the end of the tunnel.

Tristram Hunt? I ask you.

I am beginning to think that the whole thing is just an Establishment game - an Oxford Union debating club game where the metropolitan elite act it out as they screw the public whichever one of their two sides gets in.

'I suspect that the 1970's 'lite' rhetoric coming out of Presedenti Milibanditito and partner Sturgevita, woke up many a sleeping voter'

I agree it woke up Middle England, silent, sleeping Middle England - the people who are mocked and laughed at by the BBC and their progressive comedians and our Oxbridge political class of millionaire champagne socialists.

As one poster said, "she can't stop grinning" after the Tory victory. They slagged us off, they called us scum, they mocked us and spun us, but in the end we won.

The large vote for UKIP in this election is fundamentally no different to the LibDem vote in 2010. Not the same people, but a vote from people who felt that the 2 main parties were not for them, a protest vote if you like.

Yes they have a hard-core of support of about 5%-8%, the ex BNP, racists, anti-EU brigade. The question will be after the EU referendum, and a majority Tory Govt, where will their additional support come from.

Humourless I agree with you.

It's going to be a real struggle for the Labour party to win everyone over whilst not sacrificing core principles a la Blair.