This is all very sensible.

I’d only add one thing: think about how the country will be in 5 years time.

Parties often get renewal wrong by reacting to the immediate past or preparing for the immediate future.

The Tories spent 10 years in the political wilderness from 1997 because they thought that it was just that the electorate hadn’t heard them properly, hence the shrill anti Europe, anti immigration, tax bombshell flavour of their 2001 and 2005 campaigns. It wasn’t until after 2005 that they realised that the electorate was listening, they just weren’t interested in what the Tories were saying. The Labour party had a similar experience after 1979.
There are plenty of Tories who still think the same thing, that if they’d been more hardline, more right wing, nastier then they’d be sitting on a majority right now, whereas they’d have polled even lower than 36%. These people are just waiting for a tiny crack to open up between the current coalition partners into which they can pounce, decapitate Cameron, (they hate him almost as much as they hate Gordon Brown), bring down the coalition and force a general election, (even with the 55% rule a minority Tory government wouldn’t last long).
The Labour party have to compress the 10 years into, at most, 2 years. They have to quickly re-connect with their base, realise what it is that ordinary people want from Labour and provide it. Then they’ll be in a good place for the next election, (be it a year, 2 years or 5 years).

Or they could just embrace proper electoral reform, preferably STV. Then we could guarantee that the real nasty Tory party would never again get into power with a majority of MPs, but a minority of votes, (I realise that hasn’t happened this time, but FPTP delivered 18 years of unbroken Tory rule with a minority of the votes).

I disagre with some of the mentality behind this thinking.

Labour doesn’t need an electoral strategy. It needs to decide what it stands for. Compromise in government is sensible, but it has left Labour, and the public, unsure what it stands for.

I would suggest people look at what Labour did in its first term in office to see where Labour should go now.

Instead of being the party of those in poverty, talking as though an elected champion of the poor, it should become the party of Labour again.

Between 1997 and 2001 Labour created a range of work-focused measures – like a minimum wage, a lower starting rate on income tax, the New Deal, and so on. In the 2010 election it’s campaign was largely cast it to be the party that would support the poor.

Even now its biggest successes looking back have been those ones. And yes, that means supporting services on which the everage working family relies. But that is key. But it doesn’t mean building social housing for unemployed families. It means providing benefits like school meals for primary school children to all children, not just to those whose parents are out of work. It means, deciding that if something is a good thing, it is a good thing for everyone, not just those wo don’t contribute.

I know that’s a harsh lesson – but it is a lesson we learned well in the 90s.

The next Labour government will be a lot like the LibCon government.

Don’t have a new leader for the first 18 months.

Do I hear any advance on 18 months? Seriously, it’s not a bad idea but how long does it take to find yourself? And we need to take opposition seriously. Remember all those articles decrying how bad the Tories were at opposition and how opposition is vital for democracy?

Don’t vilify the lib dems for taking the deal.

To a point yes. Not all Lib Dems. Not for taking the deal. But if that translates into only attacking Tories on policy then forget it. Ditto for not mocking the Lib Dems at all.

Let the press do your work for you.

Optimistic, and I think it clashes with create blogs, fund think tanks and use online techniques . Plus if people are dying because of NHS cuts I fully expect the majority of the press to lead on ‘Coalition creates thousands of job vacancies’*

Take a positive view of dissent

Again to an extent. If the dissenters are calling for purges and loyalty oaths and not in fact taking a positive view of dissent from their views then what use are they?

raising concerns and issues not traditionally associated with the labour party

Yes. Shamelessness is in.

*Or on something involving a picture of a pretty girl, a caddish sportsman and a lot of made-up bullshit. You never know.

“If they get vilified now, then they will move closer to the tories.”

Not just the party, but their supporters. Under AV – which, small step that it is, would still be an improvement, the Lib Dems benefit by a few seats simply by not being Labour or Conservative. Whichever party the Lib Dem voters perceive as closer to them tends to benefit in the Lab-Con marginals.

Labour will have a difficult balancing act – it needs to be a clear and strong opposition, while not pushing the Lib Dem part of the coalition too far towards the Conservatives.

If I read this correctly, between a “don’t vilify the LibDems” and “let the Press do the work for you”, then you’re saying we should all aim for an incredibly “soft” opposition if at all.

Dear jesus. The press is already almost unanimously in love with the double act. Barring Johann Hari this morning and a few weirdos from the Daily Mail, every single paper is sending love messages to the “coalition”, ranging from proper raging love to “it may not be perfect but it’s what we need and it’s worth a try”.

A side effect of this is that central party control and parachuted candidates are not effective. The party itself needs to devolve and de-centralise, and to take a positive view of dissent.

that to me is the single biggest issue: an end to top-down,strangulating control, and ludicrously rigid impositions, being permanently ‘on-message’, especially when that (authoritarian,neo-liberal and condescending) message hasn’t chimed with the grass roots.

@8

I can’t help but think the lesson of this election, and of who won, is hardly that parties benefit from less top-down control and parachuted candidates.

Frankly, if this election wasn’t a public endorsement of that strategy being a succesful one then this election didn’t happen.

Labour’s message was weak – so lets not pretend that party political control, which worked well for cameron and clegg, is what cost Labour the election.

“Dear jesus. The press is already almost unanimously in love with the double act. Barring Johann Hari this morning and a few weirdos from the Daily Mail, every single paper is sending love messages to the “coalition”, ranging from proper raging love to “it may not be perfect but it’s what we need and it’s worth a try”.
”
I have said this is the major problem.
Tyrany of the majority.
The right wing papers will show sham anger but in their hearts they know Cameron is as right wing as Thatcher.
When the editor of Private eye and many of their writers are part of the love in.
Then it is a sad state of affairs
Labour was always, quite rightly, viewed with antagonism
British journalists are such sh**ts.
Most are bigotted hypcritical lying prats with afew exceptions.
The Guardian / Observer AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

@10.

Agreed. With the Labour Party having lost all bearings and still licking its wounds and without a leader, and 90% of the media exuding blind LOVE, this new government is currently without a proper opposition.

Labour’s problem is in some ways the opposite of the one the Tories have faced in opposition.

Cameron’s challenge was to move the Conservatives from the right into the centre ground where the floating votes were.

But the centre ground is now rather full. Two’s company; three’s a crowd.

The only available political space is well to the left of centre. But in recent years this territory has been sparsely populated with voters.

That need not always remain the case, of course. Labour politicians could choose to go out and try to persuade people to be more left wing. The coming cuts might help that process along.

Trouble is – no amount of silver-tongued oratory will persuade international investors to be more left-wing, so any future Labour government will risk turning the UK into an economic basket case. Again.

Many will start questioning the need for a Labour Party at all. Starting now.

Labour would have almost certainly have won the 1983 election, Thatcher was hated and it was only the Falklands war that enabled her to portray herself as a tinpot Boudicca and the right wing press to hoodwink the guillible

The Labour party needs to have principles instead of tailoring policies to the aspirations of middle class floating voters in marginal constituencies and the requirements of Murdoch. Unfortunately that will continue until there is real electoral reform and everyone’s vote has value and the right wing media is defanged by taxes and restrictions on ownership. It does not need Monkey Boy Miliband acting as Mandelslime’s puppet

Stop assuming that you’re the good guys who are meant to be in power, and stop trying to think of ways to convince people of this. You will never be able to manufacture consent to the extent that the conservatives can afford.

If you’re in politics for it’s own sake then just quit and fuck off now. Labour is meant to be the party that knows first-hand the everyday hardships of british people not born into affluence, and can offer practical suggestions for fixing it.

If you’d rather talk macro-economics than local joblessness, if you’d rather talk about aspiration than poverty, if you prioritise choice above certainty, if you think the professional classes really need a helping hand, then you’re what’s wrong with the Labour party.

Forget trying to get elected as you are. Just forget all about it. Find out, or better yet remember, who your people are and what they actually think about.

The Labour strategy has, for the last 13 years, been “We’re such great guys! When people meet us, they’ll realise that!”. Now that it’s failed, you’re suffering cognitive dissonance: “Well they left us, but they’ll be back! We are, after all, really great guys”.

Let’s see if they come back. Don’t get your hopes up.

The Labour strategy will be hang ‘em, flog ‘em, and send ‘em all home.

Sound surprising ? It shouldn’t do.

The last thirteen years have shown Labour’s two core values to be authoritarianism and a hunger for power. Add the situation on the ground to that, and they are almost certain to develop into a sort of populist BNP-lite.

First, a clarrification. I’m not a member of the labour party, and didn’t vote for them. Indeed the last 13 years contains a lengthy list of things I would rather they hadn’t done, although I’ll give them credit for others. However, in a choice between them and the conservatives, they are the team I would rather win, and having them in a realistic position to win next time is something I would prefer.

“Labour doesn’t need an electoral strategy. It needs to decide what it stands for. ”

Agreed, and the process of this will take time and require discussion. Better for that discussion to take place openly and involve as many as possible.

“If I read this correctly, between a “don’t vilify the LibDems” and “let the Press do the work for you”, then you’re saying we should all aim for an incredibly “soft” opposition if at all. ”

Not at all. But it does need to recognise that alientating lib dem supporters and the lib dems themselves dimishes the possibility of working with them in future, and is therefore counter-productive. It needs to frame its opposition as that of opposition to the government, not the parties that comprise the government. It also needs what I’d call infrastructural opposition – that is organisations not linked to it (Charities, unions, scientists, businessmen, etc) also opposing the government in an automous and sometimes contradictory fashion.

“Unfortunately that will continue until there is real electoral reform and everyone’s vote has value and the right wing media is defanged by taxes and restrictions on ownership”

Yes it does need to take the constitional issues far more seriously (if only to stop the Con-Dem’s changes stiching them up) and also tackle the media question. Although the latter can’t be said publically until Labour is in power again for obvious reasons.

There seems to be some rather simplistic analysis here.

Labour over 13 has shown it has two core values?

Clearly rubbish. Labour, like all parties, has a range of instincts, ideals, principles, priorities, and perceptions.

If you’d rather talk aspiration than poverty?

What sane person doesn’t want Labour to talk about and act for both?

The only space available is well to the left?

Clearly ridiculous when we have absolutely no idea how right or left wing the government will be, and how being in coalition will effect the dynamic of both parties.

So how about we all stop pretending we are Alistair Campbell with a great grasp of political tactics and strategic position.

Instead – those of us who want a strong party of the left – be it centre-left nuLab or further left oldLab – should discuss what we want Labour to be.

I’ll kick off.

I want Labour to be a party whose first instinct, when faced with a policy issue, is to look at the workplace and the lives of its working class base for its inspiration.

planeshift

Agreed. It will take time. It will require a lot of people to think hard about their priorities and priorities. And when it is done or largely underway, it will then take time for specific policy positions to emerge.

What we must avoid is a “I think ID cards are a bad thing so Labour should too” mentality. This process has little to do with individual policies – and when it is finished, what emerges will still have some policies its supporters disagree about.

But be being clear about the inspiration for those policies – I would hope most would be grown up enough not to then hate and deride Labour as not left wing, or only interested in power, or whatever.

“this new government is currently without a proper opposition”

Steady on Claude, no need to burst your blood vessels! It’s early days yet, mate. Try waiting till the government’s done anything before criticising what it does.

@2: Or they could just embrace proper electoral reform, preferably STV.

Labour promised a referendum on PR in 1997 and reneged on that promise. Why should anyone who supports PR trust them now?

Labour will have a difficult balancing act – it needs to be a clear and strong opposition, while not pushing the Lib Dem part of the coalition too far towards the Conservatives.

This is spot on, and exactly the balancing act I have to deal with here too. But yeah, nail on the head.

“Why should anyone who supports PR trust them now?”

They shouldn’t. But it would be nice to see “take back parliament” put some pressure on Labour for once, something which they failed to do during the few days of negotiations (it was all about telling the Lib Dems not to “sell out”, which they must have loved – must’ve really got them excited about Labour’s non-existing offer!)

“while not pushing the Lib Dem part of the coalition too far towards the Conservatives”

A very clear and obvious clarification that this 55% thing is not teh evil devilz and actually less than it should be (compared to the Scottish parliament), would be nice. And some coverage of the poll that showed that 60% of the public support the government.

I guess Lib Dems are the bad guys now. Labour are the heroes, ejected after 13 long glorious years…. it is telling that Jack Straw, John Denham, and even Ed Balls are now saying the problem with Labour was that it wasn’t tough enough on immigrants. I think you have your balancing act there. Labour won’t ever learn from why it was rejected by the public, and is still in denial about how bad its results were last week.

First
I would build on some the successful policies of the Labour party, for a party of the left.
Surestart and the minimum wage.
A correct stance on Europe (a middle way between phobia and a love in)
Intelligent running of the economy until 2001.
I know I will get stick but Darling did do well in the banking crisis, even Portillo commented on that point
They did rebuild public services

Look at where Labour went wrong
Civil liberties (although I do not that apart from he ID cards and 42 rule (which this governemnt will bring in after the first terrorist outrage), non of these laws are been repealed.
Foreign policy (in my view Kosovo and sierra leone were successful in their outcomes but Iraq , well we won’t go there).
The problems with the economy from 2001
View that the government was divorced from it’s people.

A leader who would unite the party.
I would love to see Johnson. Here is man who has had a proper job, worked in a union, comes from a disadvantaged background (so he know what it is like on a live on a low wage).
Yes he will be tarred as old Labour by the Oxbridge scum press/media. But who cares, it is the people who counts.
Bring in a variety of views into the shadow cabinet from John McDonnel, Joh Cruddas and Frank Field

The campaign for leadership
1. Must be open and media savvy). It won’t be pretty but we have 5 years to get over the wounds

Vision
Have a clear sustainable vision, it is no good saying “Well we are not the Tories”

Honesty
Don’t be like the Tories or labour in the past.
If the government passes legislation that you know you would have passed be honest and say we support it.
That will come across well with the public.

Although I fear Blanco is right I don’t think we will ever see a Labour party in government again

All governments will be neo liberal economically in outlook
Just different shades of blue.
The only differences will be on social issues like gay rights
Thatcherism has won
We all have to accept it

Oh I forgot
Push issues that the public feel strong about thst rarely gets mentioned
Such as Transport

Blanco
The rule in Scotland was place in it,s constitution before the vote not after

This gerrymandering is after an election.
It is just manipulating the figures to help an administration.
To start with such a shoddy act does not bode well for thsi government of principle

Also the 51% is an important rule for constitution
Even Tories think changing the rule is morally corrupt.

Also I asking for you to be completely honest.
If Labour suggested the same rule, with same figures would you not be shouting Chavaz and there is Labour again been authoritarian and illiberal.
Honest now

The Labour strategy will be hang ‘em, flog ‘em, and send ‘em all home.

Ha !

Just heard a Milliband complaining about immigrants coming over ‘ere and pinching our jobs.

This is going to get very, very ugly.

Cassandra
Of course there are no tories banging on about immigration.You don’t read many of your own blogging sites do you

@24

Push issues that the public feel strong about thst rarely gets mentioned
Such as Transport

YES THIS. Although it would help if the Gov actually owned some of the bastard firms that rip us off so frequently. At least then we could vote out the robbing bastards.

@Nick Cohen is a Tory,

It is true that Tory supporters are forever whining on about immigrants on their own blogging sites.

Fortunately the Tory leadership, at least since Dave took over, generally have had enough decency not to get down into the dirt with their horrible grass roots.

That’s why there’s this gap in the market. A gap in the market which the BNP, UKIP and one of your Millibands is trying to fill.

You and the comrades must be so very proud.

Fortunately the Tory leadership, at least since Dave took over, generally have had enough decency not to get down into the dirt with their horrible grass roots.

That’s why there’s this gap in the market. A gap in the market which the BNP, UKIP and one of your Millibands is trying to fill.

You and the comrades must be so very proud

So dave and the boys have never used the issue of immigrationwww.telegraph.co.uk/…/David-Cameron-UK-needs-immigration-cut.html
I can get more , if you like
Also he gets his minions, creeps like you, to the dirty work
Very simioar to the speech by Milliband
Also didn’t Thatcher talk about “Swamping by immigrants”
Powells “River of Blood speech”
I agree with you that Labour is no different Tory boy but stop the holier than thou attitude.
It makes on reach for the sick bag

Sorry
It make me reach for the sick bag