If they don’t start by identifying the principles they stand for and working from there I’ll be disappointed.

Based on the idea of a less unequal society, which I’m pleased to say was specifically mentioned, taxation should be a priority. Progressive taxes, a simpler system and the fewest possible loopholes, please!

I think you can take Blairite sniping about winning 3 elections as read: what most of the unthinking New Labour rump tend to forget is that it wasn’t a ringing endorsement of the crypto-Tory policies they espoused, it was largely due to the fact the Tory opposition was seen as unelectable at the time. The same was true of the unilateralist, Old Labour opposition during the 80′s.

Cherub is right. If “Newer” Labour is to avoid being seen either as simply New Labour Lite, or as dangerously too far to the left such that it scares the horses, it will fail.

It can make progress if it ditches the authoritarian clap trap it became addicted to, promotes a less unequal society, progressive taxation measures, proper controls on the financial sector, a realistic foreign and defence policy, a rethink on education (especially tuition fees and tertiary education), more radical measures with respect to things like environmental policy, renewable energy, national infrastructure improvements and a solution to housing problems particularly WRT greatly increasing social housing provision.

We can but hope eh?

Ed Miliband can’t promise us a new policy review when he hasn’t delivered his promise to give us a credible deficit reduction plan. Without a deficit reduction plan, this coalition will seek to destroy Labour completely.

Can I suggest this process will be much like its predecessor 20 years ago?

Basically it will be used to justify the electoral calculations being made about how to win the next election.

It will have plenty of focus on equality because that’s the point of the labour party and always was. Even for all the cash-in-pocket inequality, Labour has made the UK more equal through investment in the NHS, schools and so on. (The poor used to wait two years for an operation – the rich waited two weeks)

But mainly it will also be used to justify a populist shift to more liberal ground. There are a lot of “liberal” types out there who considered themselves left of centre. The Lib Dems used to have them so Labour had to target the more authoritarian parts of the centre ground. They have all left the Lib Dems now – so Labour sensible sees them as an easy target for winning votes.

Labour is not, and has never been, a liberal party – but hey, if you don’t change you die. And if ten percent of the voting public is looking for a party – open the door to them.

Ted

with respect – the Tories and Lib Dems got 37% and 23% at the last election without defecit reduction plans. Labour can probably wait a year or two before rushing to create one.

These are worrying times indeed.

I was living with the assumption that in return for my vote Labour would look after me just like a baby and I wouldn’t have to grow up and take responsibility for myself or my family. It is really quite scary that I may now not be able to simply live off money given to me in return for my docility and infantility.

Will I not be able to continue wafting between the Weatherspoons and the book makers all day? Will I have to actually face up to life? I can’t bear it.

Can’t the authorities borrrow more money from the Arabs/Chinese to support me? Who cares about future generations?

This makes me so angry with the establishment – I want to smash them and I will scream and scream until I am sick.

margin4error @ 5

True so why do they (Labour) continue to oppose all debt reduction measures by the coalition ? Surely in the interests of Britain our financial position is more important than our political allegiances ?

7

Is that REALLY what they are doing?

I have no time for Labour at all, but I don’t recall anyone on the Labour benches proposing zero cuts….. there may be differences WRT to timing, where the axe should fall, how long a period it should be done over, and how the “cat is skinned”, but I’m not sure how you can characterise that as “opposing all debt reduction measures”.

8

A fair point but I suspect the difference is the coalition are not willing to risk finding themselves in the same position as Eire.

9

Well…. I’m not so sure: as has been discussed a fair bit recently, there were plenty on the right calling for the Coalition to go faster, deeper and emulate Irish style cuts.

Altough I’m no economics expert, it appears at least arguable from what pundits are saying that if the Coalition had listened to that advice, we’d be in a much worse situation than we are now. I accept that there are differences in as much as we aren’t in the Euro, and can devalue etc…. but I’m not convinced it’s as clear cut as you seem to be. The Labour alternative seemed to be largely one of degree rather than principle.

Again a fair point but being an old (old) fashioned Liberal I’m not keen on any of the three main parties but I do know from my own past that the quicker a debt is paid off the better for everyone. I accept the Irish financial problem is somewhat unique as it appears their Gvmt has been hopelessly incompetent for many years. On that note, imagine having the IMF crawling all over Mr Brown’s treasury books last year !

Unless they kick out the neoliberals and recover their social democratic principles, there is no way I shall be “coming home to Labour”. Social democratic responses to the so-called debt “crisis” (so conveniently cooked up to cover the destruction of the welfare state, and so disingenuously sold as similar to a household debt. National debts are nothing like household ones) will be the first sign that things are changing. And there are plenty of alternatives to austerity measures, as readers of this site should know.

“And there are plenty of alternatives to austerity measures”

If thew were plenty of alternatives, Labour would be hammering them down the coalition’s throats.

@13

How about making the rich and corporations pay what they owe in taxes for starters.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/nov/08/businesses-that-dont-like-tax

This could potentially be a popular message. Assuming of course that corporate corruption of the political classes hasn’t reached such a degree, that they are incapable of challenging them.

Something Ed Miliband seems to be rather good at is generating headlines through research (the figures on which voters deserted Labour; the poll on whether the public supported the idea of sticking to New Labour policies). I hope that’s one of the things this review achieves: if we get lots of ‘according to IFS research commissioned by the Labour Party…’-type stories, we might be able to start setting the agenda rather than just responding to what the coalition’s doing.

Ted

Be fair – Labour havn’t set out a comprehensive alternative – but they’ve been pretty up front about the fact they would make up half the deficit through cuts and the other half through tax.

There is an economic divide between the tories/libdems and labour about whether you cut fast and early or gradually later. (based around the debate about how to foster recovery and thus boost tax take)

Also – Labour have made some proposals clear – such as that they wouldn’t be cutting corporation tax by 3 percent. Which the coalition is (as you might put it) willing to risk Irish style defecits to pay for. ive.

As I’ve said elsewhere – we were probably lucky as a country that the tories didn’t have the power to do to us what ireland did to itself. We might never have plumbed quite such depths – but cutting hard and fast at the height of a recession is pretty often destructive.

If only every glaze-eyed mention of Tony Blair “winning 3 elections in a row” was also accompanied by those two simple facts:

1) 4 MILLION (that is four million) votes lost between 1997 and 2005;

2) Labour Party membership nosediving from 405,000 in 1997 to 176,000 in 2007. That is 60% of its membership down the drain!

Remember both facts pre-date Gordon Brown’s time in office.