Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Why did the Labour comprehensively fail to defeat the Conservatives in a series of general elections?
Who said it was?
But I ike butter... it has to have butter!
Of course they would say that, they are the rivals. That doesn't answer my question "Was it so bad?"
Tories and and centre ground people it was that probably a great time as they were making shit loads of money. For left wing people it wasn't such a good time as unemployment was sky high. (This is a very simple explanation)
So as with anything whether it was good or bad depends on your point of view
and EVERYONE on the right is rich?
Try harder please.
this is pretty much what youve been telling people the last couple of days, y'know, its a poor labour people voting bnp, nothing to do with the caring conservative party. i dont understand why youve changed your mind man, i feel betrayed :(
could you come back when you have a coherent opinion that you'd like to register?
just in case you cant see my point rather than are just pretending not to understand it, your justification for the comment about people supporting the bnp being 'labour people' is that they find their heartland in 'impoverished working class' areas, this means the people who support them are de facto left wing. i can probably find various examples of you saying this. so y'know, when it suits you 'everyone who is poor' is on the left. now your claiming that they arent, hence my confusio.
is that a coherent enough post for you?
read it through again, it makes no sense.
why I mentioned centre ground people that will go with who ever is going to benefit them the most. These are the peoeple that kept the tories in power through the 80's and put labour in in the late 90's
plus you need to realise that while many of the populace were wary of the stranglehold that militants had on Labour, the party itself was busy making itself practically unelectable with unilateral nuclear disarmament policies and Michael Foot/Neil Kinnock as the leader.
we're not fussed on autonomy
I agree though. Democracy never works.
"people never work"
I think we might be both right.
and one that you're avoiding having to answer..........
Labour under Kinnock were not any sort of credible opposition and were a total mess until Smith started and then Blair & cronies grabbed labour by the scruff of the neck.
They only faux-beat them by becoming a mock version of them with new labour.
(n.b. may or may not be my actual opinion)
During the 70s and 80s the Labour party moved so far to the left that it became completely unpalatable especially with cold war in full swing. Basically the whole party was full of commies and unelectable.
This swing to the extreme left by Labour allowed the Conservatives to move to the right, and bring economic reforms that many see as the foundations for today's prosperity. Sure it was tough on the miners and other peeps but no party has undone what Thatcher did, was it really that bad?
What's the national debt, pal?
Labour was seen as a commie outpost.
There was another factor that wasn't really taken into consideration: We'd moved from the politics of electing a party to the politics of electing a Prime Minister.
No one had really accepted this but the fact was that floating voters, where once they would have been thinking 'policies, policies, policies' were now thinking:
- Ginger welsh man.
Whatever her faults, she wasn't going to lose that battle. Later it was Major vs. Kinnock. I think part of the reason they lost that election was his ridiculous egotistical displays prior to the election that made people turn off from him for different reasons.
to be honest, labour has sucessfully shot themselves in the fucking time and time again. and the recent elections are the culmination of that. quite frankly, it would be an absolutely miracle if labour could still win the next general election, whenever that may be.
Down with the 2 party system! Up with my hippy ideals!
actually a pretty interesting time for music. It was one of those watershed times (like punk 12yrs before) which changed the landscape. I'd argue that there hasn't been anything quite as seismic since The Second Summer Of Love.
it was obviously a great time for music BECAUSE of the political situation
that's often the way. Tony Wilson had a theory that there was a major movement every 12yrs which changed music. I think it's often been more about the prevailing political situation.
1967/68: vietnam (flower power)
1976/77: deep recession (punk)
1988/89: 3 terms of a harsh Tory government (acid house/dance culture)
and would like to subscribe to his newsletter
the best music generally needs to come out of some source of genuine frustration, whether its wider in scope or totally internal.
:) but I have recently become wiser and more compassionate ao I will not inflict it on people willy nilly
We need to know.
I mean, this is a genuine outrage:
so it might have been established, but I think it's mostly to do with the Labour party in the late 70s being an utter shambles (I want to use the word "anachronistic" but I'm not enitely sure it's the right one) and people remembering all that business, coupled with a very pro-Tory press, and a large proportion of the population admiring Thatcher's strong leadership. Or sutin.
Read the date.