Its standard practice after an election defeat, whether Tory or Labour. "we would have won if only we had been more left/right wing". Ignoring the overwhelming evidence that being too left/right wing is why they lost.

Its peculiar to the world of politics, the belief that if you do more of the things that make you unpopular, you will suddenly become popular

Not true. The failed independence vote sealed the fate of Scotland, and it amazes me anyone expressed surprise at the GE results. Almost without fail, nationalist Scots flocked to the SNP banner - or at least enough to guarantee seats. A cursory glance at social media told me that much, and many Scots I know joined the SNP - including right-wingers, despite their core values. It was less Nicola Sturgeon than it was Mel Gibson.

Similarly with much of English working class Labour vote. Don't mistake the old traditional died-in-the-wool Labour vote with left-leaning beliefs. That loyalty lingers thanks to decades of the unions and a laudable yet slightly illogical loyalty to the family vote. Most of the working class I know care little for leftist policies, they want plenty of work at a decent wage, immigrants out, terrorists dead, paedos castrated and cheap beer and fags. The union loyalty is dying out and UKIP are the only party saying what they're thinking.

I've said it many times. You could drink in a working men's club or pub and hear conversations that would make Nick Griffin whince, yet those same men would go out and vote Labour. Union/family loyalty, nothing more.

Since the turn of the last century (and certainly with the arrival of the Nazi Party in Germany when the practice really began to gear up) it's been common to see political entities which anyone prior to WWII would consider "Right Wing" dress themselves in the clothes of the Left. Basically it's the [ipromise[/i of socialism without socialism.

As mentioned, the Nazi Party really were the masters of this black art. Those on the Right never cease to gleefully point out the "Socialist" in National Socialism. But the Nazi Party, whilst promising a socialist revolution, never had any intentions of delivering such.

True, there was a [isocial element[/i to Nazism. A strong one, too. But this was primarily centred around the Cult of Leadership, sexual politics and the nations rampant war economy.

You have to remember, the Nazis were in direct competition with the socialists during the time of the Wiemar Republic. So it was politically expedient to blur the definition of socialism in order to capture new members.

The true litmus test of whether Nazism equated to socialism was the question of labour. A truly socialist system embraces labour unions. Indeed, such are at the very core of policy. The Nazis embraced labour unions - [iand then murdered them[/i.

Comparing Milliband's Labour with Nazism is somewhat extreme. But it's fundamentally the same argument. Labour is not a socialist party. It is not a "Left Wing" party (or even centrist).

Labour is a right wing party. The Conservative Party is further to the right. UKIP are not too distant from fascist.

I should say that the entire parliamentary political class (I don't consider today's political parties exist in any form other than name - which means this is effectively a one party state with multiple factions) will likely take two steps further to the right this term. And yes, unless this trend is reversed or diverted somehow (how, I'm not sure) we are going to have problems in the future.

That criticism is unfounded because it wasn't left wing at all.

About the most left wing things they proposed were allowing existing departments in hospitals to bid to provide services (such as radiology or whatever) whereas the Tories exclude them (only private companies allowed to bid...) and allowing rail franchises to be run as the east coat main line was rather than be compulsorily sold off.

If you thought they were left wing its because the propaganda worked.

That statement just shows the confusion that people thinking in daft so called "left" and "right" terms causes.

Confusion over political terms such as "Left-Wing" or "Right-Wing" might be common among the electorate today. But this wasn't always the case. Sure, in every society there are people who claim to be apolitical (a political statement in itself), but journey back a hundred years or so and you'd discover a country literally awash with political fervour. In Manchester alone there were over 200 newspapers published each week - the majority of which were fiercely political.

The joke that you could put a Labour donkey up for election in many northern towns and it would win was certainly no joke back then.

In the North West you voted Labour because you'd FOUGHT bloody battles on the picket line against fascist thugs to win the rights people take for granted today.

Back then people knew something most either don't or don't want to right now: Government concedes NOTHING and if you aren't prepared to fight for your rights - be prepared to lose them.

It doesn't really. In fact it is a poor example because being racist isn't the prerogative of the right. Working class people particularly of my parents generation would be trade unionists and would vote Labour not out of tribalism but because they knew no one else was going to stand up for their rights. That doesn't mean a good percentage of them weren't racist.

It is this sort of view that totally fails to understand the UK electorate and which if it prevails will see Labour in opposition for many years to come.

Firstly it is clear that the deluded Milliband's union backed strategy of appealing only to his core vote (the so called 35%) in addition to a policy move to the left from the previous 'New Labour' model was a massive failure. His tactic of ignoring the wealth creators, of being hostile to business in favour of a concentration on minority issues may have been welcomed by his followers from the 'left wing metro elite' and the leftie media but did not go down well with the suburban and country voters.

Secondly if we look at the results in Scotland it is quite simplistic to suggest the working classes want a turn to the left. In fact the two right of parties increased their share of the vote (Conservatives by 5% and UKIP by 173%) The capitulation of both Labour and the Lib Dems who are both left wing parties provided the big switch since the 2010 election with other lefties like the Trades Union & Socialist Coalition and the Scottish Socialist Party also losing half their votes to the SNP. The increase in the turnout over 2010 provided the other voters and it is interesting to note that the number that voted for the SNP in 2015 was 10% down on their vote in the referendum.

So you could say that far from being a jump to what is already a largely left wing electorate, it was a more of a selfish nationalist result as the voters see the SNP winning a better deal for them than the old Westminster based parties could.

Absolute nonsense. He wasn't remotely "hostile to business". He wanted to reduce business rates for SME's by forging a planned cut in corporation tax. So corporation-tax wise no business would be worse off and SME's would have been better off. If you are referring to things like restrictions being placed on zero hours contracts, then any ordinary voter who voted against Labour for that was a turkey voting for Christmas. And to say he lurched to the left is a joke. He did no such thing.



Where you get the Tories up by 5% I have no idea. In 2010 they got 16.7% of the vote and in 2015 14.8%. Their share of the vote went down, not up. Your figure for UKIP is also meaningless. The got 1.6% (v 0.9% in 2010) which is 47,078 votes in all. So based given you based the rest of your post on a bunch of erroneous stats I think we can dismiss the conclusions.

Ok then why the did Labour member, major donor and Gordon Brown's "enterprise champion" Lord Sugar just resign from the party. He said

Sorry wrong terminology. The Tories increased their number of votes by 5% (21,242) from 2010 to 2015. Likewise the UKIP increased the number of voters by 29,855 (173%) So my point remains the same. There is no evidence of a swing from right to left in Scotland.

The SNP picked up votes from all the other left wing parties plus most who did not vote last time (or perhaps those who only voted for the first time in the referendum and voted for the Yes campaign)

There were no other left wing parties. And the SNP are only superficially left wing - they just present themselves well.

The SNP presented the most 'left-wing' campaign to the Scottish electorate and picked up all but three of the seats there. Only a dimwit of epic proportions would try to portray that result as anything other than a swing to the left.

Liz Kendall? She's another Blairite so no thanks.



This is the key issue for me. No matter what Labour do they are always perceived as not being pro-business, which is ludicrous given their track record when last in government. Miliband started off well by saying he wanted to take on multinationals but he barely seemed to mention small and local businesses, which is where they should pitch themselves.

Every year it gets clearer and clearer that multinationals, in the service sector specifically, do little other than hoover up money from local economies and then pass them those benefits to shareholers. Sure some of them are necessary e.g. car manufacturing, but the little guy and his business is coming under ever-increasing pressure from multinationals e.g. supermarket suppliers on ridiculously low profit margins.

The Yanks have been through all this with mega-businesses like Walmart driving out small businesses who can't compete on price. It's okay saying that's market forces but small businesses put money into the local economy unlike many multinationals who look for economies of scale deals with national contractors e.g. Biffa do the bins for Tesco, at tiny profit margins. That money goes to Biffa plc, whereas if Joe Bloggs did it, the money would go into his business, his employeers, his profits and ultimately his life, where he's more likely to use local businesses when spending e.g. decorators. Money that goes to the stock exchange is money taken from that local economy. That's perhaps not as big an issue with some, but when that money goes out of the country it's rarely seen again.

The Tories are certainly never going to tackle this and Labour probably won't but it's a fundamental issue for the long-term security of this country's prosperity because we don't have the manufacturing sector to replace that money. It's one of the reasons why American politicians voted against TTIP because they could see what's likely to happen i.e. US corps shifting work to cheaper countries in Europe. American politicians are bought sure, but they're not so bought that they'll sacrifice jobs in their own constituencies just to satisfy the desire to maximise profit on Wall St.

A more cynical person would say they voted against TTIP because they know TTIP is going through regardless of how they vote but by putting their opposition on record they can curry favour with the electorate.

All the MP's who nominated Corbyn for the leadership are now bricking it that he might actually win the thing! Party in crisis.