I think its better to look to the future personally.Particularly since a lot of the self flagellation is going to look irrelevant when the big shit goes down.

11. Ed Balls, despite being involved in the party’s terrible attitude to regulation and the financial sector, having attended the Bilderberg conference and being known as a boorish intimidator, is still shadow home secretary for some reason.

12. We’ve run out of anyone who could replace him and his ilk.

Agree with virtually every word written.

Also think that New Labour failed pensioners by refusing to restore links between pensions and earnings.

Cameron and Osborne, who called for even lighter regulation of the banks, are now PM and Chancellor for some reason.

Oh for FFS, I know Fridays are confession day, but how much more self-flagellation do you want? Carry on like this, and you’ll be doing all the Tories’ work in painting Labour unfit for office ever again. Thank God Eoin Clarke isn’t the party’s political strategist.

11) We were arrogant in taking our core vote for granted and forgot the basic needs that led to the founding of the Labour Party and that still exist today.

what does this mean?

“The cost of living got tougher under New Labour and it was our fault for commodfiying essential items such as transport, education and childcare.”

afaik the user-cost of education did not change. I don’t know the difference between commodified transport and uncommodified transport. Its possible childcare was turned into a commodity* but that sounds like the sort of thing that would drive childcare costs down. What did happen to childcare costs over the Labour tenure?

* which means the sort of good which does not qualitatively differ across producers – one bushel of wheat is as good as another.

Agree.
4 and 7 are the ones I’d say to shout the loudest, as they’d chime strongest with the public, and of course, mark out more strongly differences from the Tory party.However,the still malign influence of the likes of Mandelson (and Milburn, who’s been resurfacing a lot of late), the corporate vested interests, lobbyists and loaned-out ‘advisers’, and hang-over of the Blairite infatuation with big money will all be very hard to shake off.

No 1 should have been: Due apologies for making Blair leader, that was a big mistake. As several independent observers (Roy Jenkins, Ted Honderich, Simon Jenkins) noted, Blair isn’t too bright.

What put put me off at the beginning was him presenting himself as Britain’s “strong leader” and the sycophantic references to him by ministers. No one checked up on the provenance of the Third Way before he launched that nostrum in 1998 – the provenance goes back to Mussolini. There were early signs of his capacity for spinning his delusions – try this assessment in the Guardian:

The only difference in Tony Blair’s case is how quickly the derangement has set in. The first sound of bats flapping in his belfry was heard even before the election, in December 1996, when he told Des O’Connor that as a 14-year-old he had run away to Newcastle airport and boarded a plane for the Bahamas: “I snuck onto the plane, and we were literally about to take off when the stewardess came up to me…” Quite how he managed this without a boarding card or passport was not explained. It certainly came as a surprise to his father (“The Bahamas? Who said that? Tony? Never”), and an even greater surprise to staff at the airport, who pointed out that there has never been a flight from Newcastle to the Bahamas.

A couple of years later, he told an interviewer that his “teenage hero” was the footballer Jackie Milburn, whom he would watch from the seats behind the goal at St James’s Park. In fact, Milburn played his last game for Newcastle United when Blair was just four years old, and there were no seats behind the goal at the time.
Harmless enough, you may think: many of us romanticise or reinvent our childhoods. Even Blair’s friend Robert Harris – a writer of fiction, fittingly enough – admits that the PM has a penchant for “reinterpreting reality… retailoring himself and his history to suit the moment”.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2000/feb/23/londonmayor.uk

11. We’re sorry that – despite our efforts to pander to the Daily Mail – most of it’s readers weren’t paying attention and had no idea that what we were doing was implementing policies in the direction of what they wanted.

12. We’re sorry that, despite being told repeatedly by our former supporters, we still write these lists without any mention of the Iraq war, assault on cvil liberties, tuition fees and any of the issues that led to votes and support slipping to the lib dems or left wing parties.

13. We’re sorry for being such an incompetent opposition that we’ve been unable to articilate a positive alternative to the coalition, and still fight blairite V brownite wars.

14. We’re sorry that our contempt for the grass roots and preference for allocating safe seats to careerists means we are unlikely to have a strong shadow cabinet and decent leadership candidate for another decade or longer.

I think what Labour needs to do is similar to what Blair did, (hear me out before calling me a brownshirt): Blair gave the Labour party a sadly undeserved reputation as no longer being economically incompetent, what Labour needs to do is learn not to view every problem as something that can only be solved with more spending and communicate the fact that they have learnt this. Then people may one day trust them again, (leaving aside the folly of trusting any politicians).

Of course the above is never going to happen with Balls in the shadow cabinet.

“12. We’re sorry that, despite being told repeatedly by our former supporters, we still write these lists without any mention of the Iraq war, assault on cvil liberties, tuition fees and any of the issues that led to votes and support slipping to the lib dems or left wing parties.”

That. Add to that complicity in torture.

Forget the economy, there’s no way I could ever vote for such people.

It’s not so much the self-flagellation that’s sickening, but the rewriting of history.

Labour lost at a time when it was seen as soft on crime, lax on immigration, profligate with tax payers’ money and sympathetic to the idea of using the benefits system to maintain a permanent underclass on benefits. This was 7 years after the Iraq war and with a leader who was seen by the public as on the left.

Other issues also played a part, and the failure to regulate vested interests in the financial sector will always look like a mistake. But there is no point pretending Labour lost in 2010 for being too right-wing. Blaming a defeat in 2010 on the fact Tony Blair became leader in 1994 is a variation on what the Tories did in 1997: kidding themselves that they had lost a non-existent, core vote by not being extreme enough. It kept the Tories out for 13 years. A similar delusion kept Labour out for 18 years before that. The Tories are actually very vulnerable at the moment, people are sickened by police cuts, bungling and broken promises, but they are currently being given a free run at the next general election by a self-indulgent opposition more concerned with settling scores with people in their own party who have long since retired than actually taking the fight to the Tories.

11. Sorry about hanging the disabled out to dry, they are not really to blame for everything that went wrong. If we had looked at history instead of focus groups, we might have attempted to attack the cowards that went after them instead of getting our boots on and stepping up behind them.

12. Sorry about introducing ATOS, we didn’t think that through at all. We now believe it is wrong to force seriously mentally ill people to look for non existent jobs.

13. Sorry about kicking the lungs out of the unemployed. We were unable to look at the long term picture that demonising a group of people based on the Daily Hate would lead to a long term fracture in society.

14 Sorry about not defending public services. Despite the fact that the richest people on the planet sat in TV studios and dismissed teachers as ‘non jobs’, we were unable or unwilling to defend those jobs.

15 Soory about not really attacking the Tories as jobs go down the toliet. We like toffs too so we cannot say too much about the rich getting richer while the poor suffer.

Richard @ 5

Carry on like this, and you’ll be doing all the Tories’ work in painting Labour unfit for office ever again

Labour’s ace in the hole, being a leadership contest, hopefully that will shift focus from any future problems the Tories may have.

In essence blue labour slavishly followed trickle down economics that has left our country bankrupt! You have also forgotten one more important legacy blue labour left us and that is the culture of mistrust. Blue labour’s centralising obsession i.e. CRB checks, detention laws, fixation with targets etc has undermined trust which is a social glue that must bind us all together. This is something they have to admit to and act upon or they are up sh…t street good style

” kidding themselves that they had lost a non-existent, core vote”

Demonstrably untrue – see http://refusingthedefault.blogspot.com/2011/09/if-you-like-their-voters-so-much-why.html

“Labour lost almost five million in the same time period.

Very roughly, their net losses were:

•1 million to the Conservatives
•1.5 million to the Lib Dems
•1.5 million to declining turnout1
•Less than 1 million to minor parties”

Proof of the pudding – see Labour’s recovery in Wales over the last 10 years following the abandoment of Alun Michael’s blairism with Rhodri Morgan’s ‘classic labour’. Compare and contrast to the fortunes of labour in Scotland.

Éoin Clarke

To keep calling them “New Labour” when the same unpleasant cast of characters are still on the front bench won’t wash I’m afraid.

When I see the hapless Ed Miliband calling the Tories; “The nasty party” when he was part of a government that sucked up to murderous dictators like Gadaffi and the dodgy dossiers with the Saudi’s – not to mention Damian McBride, Derek Draper and Gordon Brown it stinks.

And finally we have Ed Miliband calling Cameron’s bunch; “The same old Tories”.

Just as they are the same old Labour who just don’t get it.

Ditch Miliband and offer some real opposition or give up….

While a few admissions of mistakes would probably go down well, I really doubt that Labour presenting a Why We’re Shit list is a tactical masterstroke.

“I really doubt that Labour presenting a Why We’re Shit list is a tactical masterstroke.”

Self pity and lack of confidence never go down well in Politics. Electoral Success is about the future – remember Cameron’s first PMQs as tory opposition leader and his scathing dismissal of blair – “I want to talk about the future…he was the future once”. The tories also had ideas such as big society – they may have been bad or meaningless ideas, but they were there.

If labour wants to win it needs to stop talking about the past and present it’s ideas for the future in 2015. If the economy has been sluggish and unemployment is high then they have an open goal. But their current team show no signs of being able to even see the goal, let alone score one.

I think this list is quite good, although it might help if you got something about immigration in there (unless that’s covered under no. 3, “mismanaging European expansion”?).

@19 – Chaise Guevara

Admitting what the whole population knows to be true shows honesty at least.

When we see that last bunch claiming black is white blah blah we don’t believe them.

Think of it as “Truth and Reconciliation”.

It might work because any party tanking in the polls at this stage considering all the austerity needs all the help it can get…

@21 – would it go something like this?

“we’re sorry we tightened up the immigration system through successive immigration acts, banned asylum seekers from working and forced them to live on vouchers, created the category “no recourse to public funds” that prevented victims of domestic violence living in refuges, and imprisoned children in adult detention facilities. Who were we to know that those parts of the population who wanted all black people thrown out of the country would be to thick to pay attention to the legislation we passed?”

@17

I’m not claiming that Labour has not lost votes. The myth is that it is a left-wing core vote. It is the direct parallel of the Tories who thought they lost in 1997 because their core vote had stayed at home or voted for minor parties because they were too left-wing.

The fact is that for a very long time now most people describe themselves as “centre-left”, “centre” or “centre-right”. The number of people who describe themselves as “left-wing” or “right-wing” combined is rarely much more than one in ten. Unfortunately, they tend to come from a narrow range of backgrounds and listen to a narrow range of people and consider themselves the silent majority. Polling after 2010 found immigration and crime to be among the top issues with the public; not Iraq, not civil liberties, not Guardian reader issues. Try having a look at the recent Social Attitudes Survey and tell yourself that there is a broad left-wing constituency out there.

You can ask the public to move to the left, but let’s not pretend that Labour lost in 2010 by being too right-wing. The long term trends towards lower participation in elections, or the way governments tend to become unpopular and exhausted over time, do not reflect some ideological issue. Just because a few champagne socialists thought voting against Brown was a way to protest against Blair, doesn’t mean the general public did. They saw Brown as considerably to the left of Blair and utterly unable to govern. Pretending that the government that lost in 2010 was “New Labour” is simply not a good enough excuse to convince anyone rational that a return to the protest politics of the 1980s is going to beat the Tories now, any more than it did then.

@ 22 Anon E Mouse

“Admitting what the whole population knows to be true shows honesty at least.”

Absolutely. I just think that amount of honesty is a bad idea, sadly. I’d love to live in a world where political individuals and parties are honest, but they’re not. The general rule is to emphasis/exaggerate your own acheivements and downplay/dismiss those of your opponents, and that’s without any outright lying involved. Labour can afford to be a little more honest than other parties, but not more honest by an order of magnitude.

“It might work because any party tanking in the polls at this stage considering all the austerity needs all the help it can get…”

If Labour stood up and announced its We’re Shit List, this would not usher in a new age of political honesty. The Tories and Lib Dems would not respond in kind (btw, how likely does it sound to you that a similar article to this one would be written about the Tories by their supporters?); they would sardonically applaud Labour for “admitting what we’ve been saying all along” and then bring it up at every opportunity, saying “Labour admit they’re not fit to govern!”

Such a move would strike a beautiful but utterly fruitless blow for honesty. It would strike a much more solid blow for Tory success at the next umpteen elections. I’m not against honesty, far from it, but I do counsel against sheathing your claws when everyone else is going to keep theirs sharp.

11. We apologise for trying to play to Tory voters and demonise the unemployed and disabled.

12. We apologise for Ed Miliband’s ignorance about the disabled and his comments about a nameless man on IB a few months ago.

13. We apologise for Ed Miliband and his ability to sound like he lacks any conviction or passion about anything.

14. We apologise for licking the arses of the right-wing press while we were in power.

15. We apologise for presideing over a weak criminal justice system (although the Tories did and are doing the same).

16. We apologise for wasting loads of money on the Dome.

17. We apologise for not doing more to reform the expenses system.

18. We apologise for having cocked up the invasion and reconstruction of Iraq.

Planeshift @ 23:

Erm, yes, they “tightened up the immigration system” whilst overseeing an unprecedented (and deliberate — “rub the Right’s nose in diversity”, remember?) increase in immigration. Also, your idea that anybody who’s not happy with the present situation “want[s] all black people thrown out of the country” is an example of precisely the sort of unthinking, arrogant, out-of-touch opinions which people associate with Labour and immigration.

“an unprecedented (and deliberate — “rub the Right’s nose in diversity”, remember?) increase in immigration”

Right ‘overseeing’ – so you conceed there is no legislation that liberalised immigration controls?

There were several acts of parliament that tightened restrictions on immigration – thats a funny way of ‘overseeing’ an increase in immigration if you want to do it deliberately, and the idea that this was a plot to rub the rights nose in it has been discredited.

” people associate with Labour and immigration.”

Only the sort of people who don’t pay attention to what governments actually do, as opposed to what tabloid newspapers tell them they have done. Hence you haven’t actually challenged the fact that new labour reduced the entitlements of asylum seekers (remember vouchers), locked up children, introduced no recourse to public funds.

Challenge – point to one – just one – piece of legislation passed by new labour when in office that substantially liberalised immigration controls. The side effects of EU expansion is about the only actual act you can point to, and they tried to mitigate the effects of this by introducing the worker registration scheme to restrict access to public funds.

Blair could have passed an act of parliament that deported hundreds of thousands of foreign nationals and none of the “we’re concerned about immigration” crowd would have noticed. It was a concern largely based on urban myths about immigrants being given free cars, sensastionalist and made up stories in the taboids, and the natural growth of existing ethnic minority populations in urban areas that increased the visability of the BME population. None of the anti-immigrant crowd has ever expressed concern about the number of Australians or Americans in the country.

@18

You said

“And finally we have Ed Miliband calling Cameron’s bunch; “The same old Tories””.

That’s because they are the same old Tories. Plus ça change.

How about ‘we’re sorry that we have no ideology underpinning our actions, and therefore no vision of where we are going’.

It would save repeating the ten points above (always good to acknowledge your mistakes, true, but stupid to point them out at length) and might go some way to addressing Labour’s core problem – it no longer stands for anything.

So many to choose from, but ‘highlights’ would be:

1. Invasion of Iraq based on reports of non-existant weapons culled from someone’s homework on the internet.

2. Invasion of Afghanistan.

3. Extraordinary rendition, i.e. complicity with torture overseas.

4. Increased police powers, censorship and general erosion of civil liberties at home

5. Shoot to kill policies.

6. Supporting dictators abroad.

7. Endemic corruption.

8. Fucking up the economy.

9. ATOS

10. PFI

11. Locking up the children of asylum seekers.

Or they could forget about apologising and just shag a pig on TV like in Black Mirror.

“11. Locking up the children of asylum seekers”

Yep, definately part of a policy of deliberately increasing immigration……

11. Locking up the children of asylum seekers.

Was the mistake leaving the parents free or not letting the children run around with no parental supervision?

Sorry…

@ Planeshift:

Erm, you do realise that allowing more people to immigrate and reducing the entitlements given to immigrants aren’t mutually exclusive policies, don’t you?

As for increasing immigration, yes, New Labour might have passed some cosmetic laws to say “Look how tough we are on immigration!”, but the fact remains that immigration increased considerably during the Blair years.

Anyway, try looking at this article, which was written by somebody who’s pro-immigration, and therefore unlikely to invent some sort of immigration conspiracy to make the government look bad: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23760073-dont-listen-to-the-whingers—london-needs-immigrants.do

“But the earlier drafts I saw also included a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural.

The results were dramatic. In 1995, 55,000 foreigners were granted the right to settle in the UK. By 2005 that had risen to 179,000; last year, with immigration falling thanks to the recession, it was 148,000.”

So yes, I think there was a deliberate attempt to increase immigration.

Love how the threads like these always bring out the last few delusional diehard Blairites like oldandrew. Always good unedifying entertainment, for the student of the dysfunctional mind.

“So yes, I think there was a deliberate attempt to increase immigration.”

That article has been discredited numerous times. You still haven’t cited the act of parliament I asked for to support your claim. Again, which act of parliament substantially liberalised immigration controls?

” 5. The cost of living got tougher under New Labour and it was our fault for commodfiying essential items such as transport, education and childcare. ”

The period you are speaking about covers a large part of what is referred to by economists as ‘ the great moderation ‘ i.e. the cost of living did not get tougher for most people, it was the opposite. Transport did get more expensive, but the real price of food, clothes and electronics declined. Undoubtedly, if you spent all your income on transport and childcare life got tougher.

” 7. New Labour failed to regulate and tax the profits of big business, the city and the banks. ”

So where the hell did all those tax revenues that declined dramatically in 2008 at the onset of the recession come from if you were not taxing the City and the banks? You were getting 20% of the total corporation tax take for the whole economy from 5 banks alone. The left can’t argue that much of the deficit is through the decline in tax revenues and also say we did not tax the City and the banks.

Richard W

well, we could have taxed the banks more (and then had an even bigger deficit and more cuts when it all went south)

but never fear – taxes from financial sector are on the up again – 12% of total tax revenues during last fiscal year:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/57205be6-2732-11e1-b9ec-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1gbl2KtxF

You forgot to admit that you overspent

11. IRAQ

Just ten things wrong? Labour has become a terribly tarnished party. They only might just win the next election because they might not be perceived as evil as the current incumbents. They have a massive hill to climb.

@29 – buddyhell

That was the point. The useless Ed Miliband and his hypocrisy.

Labour are no different from the bunch that had their second worst election defeat in the party’s history at the last election.

Old Labour – Blue Labour – New Labour – it’s all the same….

Planeshift @ 38:

“That article has been discredited numerous times.”

By whom?

“You still haven’t cited the act of parliament I asked for to support your claim. Again, which act of parliament substantially liberalised immigration controls?”

One example of liberalising immigration controls is the abolition of the Primary Purpose Rule: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/politics97/news/06/0605/straw.shtml

The article makes no mention of Acts of Parliament, but I don’t see that it matters. Relaxing immigration restrictions is relaxing immigration restrictions, whether the government needs Parliamentary authority of not.

“The article makes no mention of Acts of Parliament, but I don’t see that it matters. ”

Well it clearly does because in order to substantially liberalise immigration controls you would have to have one. You’ve had 3 hours to google stuff and haven’t yet managed to find one – doesn’t that tell you something? Surely a government intending to substantially liberalise immigration policy would have left a significant footprint somewhere?

What you have done is find a policy decision from 1997 – a manifesto commitment that was long standing policy (hence blair probably hated it). A decision that was more about allowing british citizens to marry foriegners without immigration officials being allowed to acting in a draconian manner and prevent a couple being together with no evidence (are you seriously against british citizens having the right to marry foreign nationals?) and a policy decision that was essentially a change in who the burden of proof would lie with in an immigration dispute rather than anything else. And a decision that was partially reversed over the subsequent decade with both policy changes and legislation regarding marriages that require even two white british citizens to be interviewed prior to marriage.

http://armchairnews.co.uk/2010/09/28/ed-the-dead-leads-a-moribund-party/

Labour, nearly two years since they were ousted from power, still haven’t answered any questions or have admitted any failings. That is why the party is heading for permanent opposition.

I have too agree with the above but feel that these are not the main reasons why Labour lost the last election.

Surely the reason that they lost the last election wzas that then as now they are out of touch and do not have the remotest idea of what they really stand for and in waht direction they are going.

Blair was an arch exponent of this his mantra seeming to be that it matters not what you get into government for,it all about getting into government. Well how wrong can you be? This present motley crew are tarred with the same brush.

If Labour are going to make any progress following the Blair/Brown debacle the party has to firmly establish what needs to be done for the majority of the population and then convince the self same population that this is the correct way to govern. The issues are not difficult:

Make Income Tax progressive and do not allow any avoidance or evasion
Restore equity to the financial system
Restore respectability in the political system
Stop fighting pointless bloody wars
Ensure equality operates at all levels
Provide houses affordable homes.

Simple Tsch

The future matters more than the past. I’d say that the problem that Labour realy has to face, is that there is no more money. And there never will be.

The age of austerity is not going to last for the next five years. It is going to last until we are all dead.

Planeshift @ 46:

No, I wouldn’t expect a party seeking to relax immigration restrictions to go to Parliament, not if they could do so without passing any legislation. It’s an uncontroversial fact that immigration had increased a lot, and when a former government adviser says this was deliberate I’m inclined to believe him unless someone can shed doubt upon his testimony — something which you have so far completely failed to do, beyond some vague statement about how it’s been discredited “numerous time”. (Discredited by whom, exactly? And what did they say to discredit it?) The issue of legislation is a red herring, and I suspect you know it.

31, shoot to kill policy, this was only for suspected terrorist bombers, which resulted in a terrible tragedy, on 22.7.05/ a polcy that the tories haven’t changed nor have Laobur towards letting the police continue this, there’s been aobut 20 known stopped terror attacks since where the police nearly shot dead terrorists like, teh airport in scotland ,on 2007

When i was prepared to get the door slammed in my face at the 2005 eelctionit was becuase I agreed with things like, the polce mergers 42 days Id cards, changing the abortion laws in Northern Ireland, women being able to set up their own Brothels in their own houses, plu about 8 other polices, It’s ironic at teh 2010 election laoburs polices were to have a referndum on Av, plus to have fixed term parliaments things the Coalition has offered, there were other polices that were mentioned that Meant that Nu laobur hadn’t ran out of steam, now Both the Black book and teh Purple one offer New laobur policies, Blue laobur is much more towrds the orignal beverage welfare state idea,a nd ttlee would have been closer to Blue laibur thatn what he actually introducede in 1845, with his view that the welfare state was set up ,not to have people living on the dole, but it was ahander tothose who couldn’t find work,

regarding giving police more powers that wasn’t a reason that laobur lsot the last election

@49

Funny, there seems to be plenty as money somewhere, as executive pay seems to be doubling every couple of years. Plenty of money out there. Just most people aren’t seeing any of it.

“Discredited by whom, exactly? And what did they say to discredit it?)”

The person who revealed the ‘plot to rub the rights nose in it’ subsequently claimed he was misquoted by the tabloids and wrote a follow up article in which he specifically wrote:

“There was no plot. I’ve worked closely with Ms Roche and Jack Straw and they are both decent, honourable people whom I respect (not something I’d say for many politicians).

What’s more, both were robust on immigration when they needed to be: Straw had driven through a tough Immigration and Asylum Act in 1999 and Roche had braved particularly cruel flak from the Left over asylum seekers. ”

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23760648-how-i-became-the-story-and-why-the-right-is-wrong.do

“It’s an uncontroversial fact that immigration had increased a lot, ”

It increased in every single European country (thats one hell of a lot of left wing plots) as a result of EU expansion, cheaper transport and criminal networks smuggling people, and natural expansion of existing minority groups through marriage etc.

At the same time there were numerous acts of parliament and policy decisions that were aimed at tightening immigration controls throughout the period. You have so far failed to provide any act of parliament or significant policy decision that substantially liberalized policy – immigration rose despite the government’s numerous efforts due to factors beyond its control. Without those measures it would have risen by even more.

You have to be a particularly stupid and ignorant person to think that a government that locks up children is being soft on immigration. The idea that such a policy would fit in with the idea of deliberately increasing immigration to wind up their political opponents is absurd.

“Labour realy has to face, is that there is no more money. And there never will be.”

This is correct unfortunately, and labour isn’t going to win again until it can suggest that it will improve services without throwing money at them.

Planeshift @ 54:

He also wrote:

“Multiculturalism was not the primary point of the report or the speech. The main goal was to allow in more migrant workers at a point when – hard as it is to imagine now – the booming economy was running up against skills shortages.

But my sense from several discussions was there was also a subsidiary political purpose to it – boosting diversity and undermining the Right’s opposition to multiculturalism.”

OK, so annoying their political opponents was only part of their reason, not the sole reason. They still deliberately increased immigration.

In re: the EU migrants, lots of other countries imposed restrictions on immigration from the new member states. Ours didn’t. So that’s one area where the government could easily have restricted immigration more.

“You have to be a particularly stupid and ignorant person to think that a government that locks up children is being soft on immigration. The idea that such a policy would fit in with the idea of deliberately increasing immigration to wind up their political opponents is absurd.”

What exactly is so harsh about that? If there’s a danger that asylum seekers will try and disappear and so avoid the risk of deportation,* you need to make sure that they can’t. If they’ve got children, wouldn’t it be better to keep them with their parents, even if those parents are being detained somewhere, than to send them off to fend for themselves?

* Note that “increasing immigration” =/= “letting in everybody who asks to come”, so no, you can’t use the fact that some people were deported as evidence for your case.

I agree with much of that except 6,

‘We in New Labour are to blame for the rising levels of personal debt for not ensuring banks lent more responsibly. ‘

I think that’s quite generous. I can’t blame Labour because my cards are stacked. I stacked ‘em…

So basically say a lot of things that are popular, easy to say, and have no details on how to stop those problems (whether they’re really problems or not) then?

How’s this any different to what they have been doing and saying over the last 12 months?

I prefer: “The Labour Party’s been going the wrong way ever since Michael Foot resigned. We intend to reverse this trend.”

@47

“That is why the party is heading for permanent opposition.”

I’m not sure I agree with this; I’m certainly more inclined to bury NewLabour than to praise it… but given the alternatives, it appears (sadly) unlikely that the bunch of clueless principle voids who were at the centre of the vile New Labour project can be written off just yet.

Given the self-destruction of the Lib Dems… which would be funny if it weren’t so tragic for the political future of this country… we can probably expect Labour in some guise to re-gain power at some point.

Britain will no doubt continue on it’s somewhat eccentric path of becoming semi-detached from the EU, more and more wedded to the shrinking of the state, “sauve qui peut” society so beloved of Tories and New Labourites. The Scots will no doubt decide that enough is enough and declare independence in due course, leaving the rump British state to deal with life in the second division.

Way to go……

There are some interesting posts on this thread but it seems to me that only oldandrew is getting to the heart of the matter by identifying the important distinction between what loyal Labour voters disliked about the last Labour government (and what they by extension think the lectorate thought) and how the electorate actually viewed it (rightly or wrongly).

I certainly agree that there were right-ish policies which labour adopted and bungled (from whichever perspective you look at it) but I believe oldandrew is stating the plain truth that Labour didn’t lose because the general public thought Labour had gone too far to the right. The main faults – as the electorate saw it – are ones which may or may not have been intrinsically ‘left wing’ but which in any case the electorate associated/associate with Labour more so than with the Tories.

The Tories went through several leaders after 1997 while under the delusion that the problem was that they hadn’t been sufficiently right wing. Labour in the 80s (especially) suffered from an equivalent delusion, listening to highly intelligent and knowledgeable but nervertheless utterly mistaken people like Tony Benn who really seemed to think a large chunk of the public had voted for Margaret Thatcher because Labour had been, er, insufficiently socialist. Benn confused what he would like people to think with what people actually thought.

The willingness to admit you may have got things wrong (whether you really believe it or not) is a vital stage for an opposition to go through in order to make itself electable once more. Both the Tories and new Labour had to do that to some degree. The public does like strong parties but it dislikes ones that appear to be arrogant and unrepentant about mistakes they have made.

Accepting that Labour got certain things wrong due to ideas that can be associated more with left wing ideology than right wing ideology is vital if Labour is to get into power again. Alternatively people can maintain that the only problem was that Labour was too like the Tories, and that the public are being brainwashed etc etc – and watch it stay in opposition.

59, ever since micheal foot resigned ,you want to reverse the trend of labours vote going up from 27% ?,

you want laoburs popualritiy to go down below 27%?

yes i know the 29% at the last election wasn’t much better, but it was still better.

58, the Mchperson report, criticising the Tories policy on South africa, letting sinn Fein at the negociating table, when they hadn’t put their weapons beyond reproach the HRA the freedom of information act, gay rights, Lots of these things weren’t popular with the public, it took laobur to swing these views around to public accepting them were all things taht laobur said when they were in power that weren’t popular,
Yes Labour has been saying somethings that are popularist without explaining them,
But Ironcially ever since the tories went to the left of laobur on civil rights regarding the law, (anominity to rape suspects) inncoent people having the DNA destroyed etc,as now these views are seinging away form the laobur view of “hang em And Flog Em” laoburs views on civil liberties regarding these wto matters aren’t out of touch with the public.

60 61, brilliant

“Love how the threads like these always bring out the last few delusional diehard Blairites like oldandrew. Always good unedifying entertainment, for the student of the dysfunctional mind.”

Is arguing that Labour should try to appeal to the public as it is, rather than fantasise that the public are all Guardian readers whose only complaint about Labour is that it is too right-wing, really evidence of being a die-hard Blairite?

yes, labour lost only 1 million voters to the tories out of the 5 million it lost. That does not suggest to me that they were perceived as being ‘too left-wing’. You go on about the ‘centre-left’, there’s nothing centre-left about new labour. They are centre-right by any definition (unless your sample only includes Pinochet and Newt Gingrich). DO you really think Labour would lose votes if they vocally said they would start turning back the clock on privatisation of the NHS, education and rail, and perhaps even utilties? If they said they would ensure the feral rich paid their taxes? If they improved labour laws to the benefit of workers, not employers? If so, you are delusional.

You are attacking a total straw man as though the only options are centre-right Blairism, i.e. the same destructive end for all normal working people as the Conservatives are planning but a bit slower, or hardline trotskyism.

66 Labour promised to remationalise most of the industires the tories privatised in the mid 80′s at the 87 election Plus Buy back teh Privatised councilk houses, and yes I belive that cost laobur millions teh NHS fair enough I don’t think the public are that bothered about the priavisation teh education service, but then Nationalising industires isn’t a left wing thing, Churrchill nationlised the breweries, Heath did the same with Rolls royce.

“yes, labour lost only 1 million voters to the tories out of the 5 million it lost. That does not suggest to me that they were perceived as being ‘too left-wing’.”

That’s why you need to look at the polling in detail. We can pretend that every non-voter, Lib Dem, SNP or BNP vote is a disillusioned leftwinger, but the evidence doesn’t support it.

“They are centre-right by any definition (unless your sample only includes Pinochet and Newt Gingrich).”

That’s why it helps to look at the polling instead of the Guardian. Tony Blair was seen as almost perfectly on the centre, or even a tiny fraction to the right.Brown was seen as significantly left of centre. If Labour’s votes were lost to the left then 2010 should have been a better result than 1997, 2001 and 2005.

“DO you really think Labour would lose votes if they vocally said they would start turning back the clock on privatisation of the NHS, education and rail, and perhaps even utilties? If they said they would ensure the feral rich paid their taxes? If they improved labour laws to the benefit of workers, not employers? If so, you are delusional.”

Unfortunately elections aren’t fought only on the positive consequences of the policies of your choice. They are also fought on the negative consequences (particularly cost), less popular policies and general competence.

‘Not making homes more affordable.’ No: by not regulating landlords and the rental market. By not making it safer for tenants to rent homes long term at levels way below one third of income (as it used to be.) Rents are escalating, tenants face insecure short term tenancies and landlords are feted. That’s where you wrong on property: by wallowing in a stupid buy-to-let boom/free-for-all.

oldandrew, show your workings

@7. Luis Enrique: “what does this mean?” OP quote: “The cost of living got tougher under New Labour and it was our fault for commodifying essential items such as transport, education and childcare.”

Richard W @39 made a brave stab at explaining, but it remains unclear to me. It just sounds like an attempt to raise cheers from the crowd using obtuse language that can mean anything.

The Wikipedia definition of commodity is surprisingly helpful, identifying that a commodity is fungible to some degree. A fungible good can be substituted for one of equal quality from a different source.

For all of its faults, New Labour did not argue for the commodification of transport, education and childcare. New Labour argued that different ways of delivering transport, education and childcare would be better, not equal.

@OP

Yes, all of these ‘mea culpa’s’ are all very well, but to use a tired old political phrase…. “Where’s the beef?”

No amount of apologising (however necessary and cathartic) will convince people to vote Newer Labour if they don’t articulate a coherent vision of what they are going to do to get us out of the current mess, and how this differs from the offerings of the Coalition.

Blue Labour isn’t going to cut it, any more than the Big Society is a vote winner. Parties CAN appeal to voters by saying they will do things differently; it worked for the SNP after all… and whilst I’d agree that the situation in Scotland can’t be regarded as directly applicable, the UK Labour party could do a lot worse than examine how the SNP managed to give them such a drubbing.

Learn from the past by all means, but look to the future.

The trouble is, given what I’ve seen and heard from Labour since the election, they resemble the Bourbons in 19th century France more and more…. they have forgotten nothing, and remembered nothing. No wonder many of us despair about the political future for this country; so little vision, so little talent.

All great points Galen. To which I would add: reclaim ‘leftwing’ as a compliment, not an insult, like Pippin Toryboy has been wielding it.

@73

I’m not even sure how useful ‘reclaiming’ the term left-wing would be frankly? I’ve always seen myself as left of centre for example, but have little time for the Scargilite tendency which did so much to scotch any realistic prospect of changing the quaintly crypto-medieval British political system.

What we need is an alternative; we don’t have anything close to one with any of the main political parties, so the short to medium term prospect is (sadly) more of the same.

Labour in particular have been lamentable since the GE, partly because they are still infested with Blairites, partly because they have a pathetic lack of talent at the top, and partly because their history militates against being radical… they are mired in a statist vision which accepts the sterile to-ing and fro-ing between Tory and Labour inherent in our dysfunctional system since 1945.

“As for increasing immigration, yes, New Labour might have passed some cosmetic laws to say “Look how tough we are on immigration!”, but the fact remains that immigration increased considerably during the Blair years.”
Not as much as this present government.
Also I thought you were christian, love to all men and all that.
Good will to all the white ones eh XXX or should we say KKK

Labour is unelectable because it lacks the vision, press power, money and the will.
Also the left will always be divided, note the views on this thread.
Actually it is one of few good things about lefty politics.
The Thatcherite right is never divided.
Look at Tim J, XXX, Paul N, SFMS and the rest of the right wing clowns on the site they never disagree and always tow the Thatcherite mantra.
I am afraid 2012 will involve unemployment, an expensive state funeral for Thatcher, the many right wing press journos retaining their power and influence and smug right clowns blaming any economic mistakes by the government on the previous government, lib dems, immigrants, unions, latins or the EU.
The only thing to look forward to is the end of the world.