Saturday, 13 May 2017

Labour Lacks Credibility



Martin Kettle from The Guardian stable is another widely respected columnist who takes the view that with Jeremy Corbyn as its leader, Labour lacks all credibility with the electorate as a party of government.

The following paragraph, foe example, is spot on.

"What, though, is the point of renationalising Royal Mail except to deliver to trade union vested interests, for example? Or of putting the health minister in charge of what would become a fearsomely centralised NHS? And what is the national good or the new thinking in several of the other goodies in the package for Britain’s too often unreconstructed unions? Sectoral collective bargaining is 1970s union power revisited, not a more modern focus on co-determination. Union power is not the same as workers’ rights."

Read the full article via the link below and decide for yourself, but if you ask me unless Labour gets its act together, the party is in danger of becoming a branch of the Unite union - with Len McCluskey pulling the strings.


  


https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/11/labour-manifesto-ideas-right-state-role

The problem with Labour’s manifesto isn’t the ideas, it’s the credibility

By Martin Kettle - The Guardian

While this is a more nuanced prospectus than the right claims, it is too starry-eyed about the state’s role – and has some glaring fudges

How seriously should one take the Labour manifesto? In a serious election it ought to matter a lot. Yet everything about Labour at the moment – the manifesto included – reflects the sleepless battle for control of the party, rather than any serious engagement with non-Labour Britain. Oddly, though, this means there is some unity about the manifesto. The Corbynites want to run on a leftwing manifesto for reasons of ideology, but Jeremy Corbyn’s opponents want that too, so that Corbyn can own the defeat they expect on 8 June.

The much larger questions, especially to the three-quarters of British voters who are not Labour supporters, are whether this is a plausible manifesto, and whether there is a large and sustained appetite for a government dedicated to rolling back the Thatcherite counter-revolution. Don’t rule that out. But a manifesto is also only as plausible as the leader who presents it. I’d be lying if I didn’t say I think most voters have made up their minds on that.

There will, though, be many whose hearts beat a little faster on hearing that Labour would bring public ownership back into the railways, the energy suppliers and the Royal Mail, whose spirits rose at the prospect of tax rises for the 5% of highest earners, with reversal of inheritance and corporation tax cuts, who were cheered by big spending pledges on the NHS, social care, schools and student finance, and who were bucked by pledges on rights at work and a lower retirement age.

Too often Labour offers an attitude and a piety rather than an analysis: scrap this, ban that, reverse the other