Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Kinnock 1985


Alan Davies tonight says this speech in 1985 was the beginning of the modern Labour Party......


Hearing the speech for the first time myself (in excerpts) it seems this is when Neil Kinnock said it was not about Labour principles, it was about winning a general election. The beginning of the road to success for Labour. The beginning of Labour playing the game.


Kinnock divided the party with this speech - many walked out.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/13438-the-modern-labour-party/
Share on other sites

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Back to left wing opposition wilderness. Why are

> the Unions still such a big player in Labour

> Leader elections, when they have been dragging

> Labour down for decades.


maybe because the party has finally realised that people have had enough and are thoroughly sick of the past decade of 'new' Labour spin and might prefer to see a return to what the 'ordinary' people want from them?

Narnia Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I tend to agree with Katie1969. Is it not good to have a party that in some way is accountable to the people?


Since the working population of UK is approximately 36m, with the total population being nearly 62m and given that total union membership is only just over 6m - trade unions can scarcely be representative of "the people".


Additionally, trade union membership is skewed toward public sector workers, with almost 60% of public sector employees being in a union. In the private sector the % is nearer 5%. Thus trade unions are not only NOT representative of "the people" they aren't even a balanced representation of the workforce.

Mick, your opening salvo was about Neil Kinnock talking about making the party electable. As you don't actually proffer an opinion, it's for us to guess at what you're getting at, but for me, it came across that electability rather than principle was somehow to be sniffed at.


And yet, and yet: here we have an opposition leader who will go back to "left wing wilderness".


Perhaps I was wrong in my original inference, but what's a leader to do?


As long as we all value smarm over principle we'll have an unelectable opposition, and be governed by a bunch of elitist, self-interested c*nts. And you know what? We deserve no better.

Have any of the naysayers on here even been to a hustings?


Or listened to more than a 5 min soundbite on tv?


Or have you just swallowed a media depiction that bears little resemblence to the real Ed Miliband. Do some research before making ludicrous judgements like "unelectable" or "back to the wilderness". It does no one justice.

Ludicrous David?


The point that I'm making is that your typical cuntybollocks voter isn't going to watch more than a soundbite before making their decision. I think it's a sorry state of affairs that you need to be charismatic and photogenic to get voted into power but there we are.


I'm sure he has the wit and hopefully the advisors around him to groom him into what the British public want from a PM.

I suspect the Tories are cracking open the champagne bottles tonight over Ed Milliband becoming Labour leader. Instinctively the electorate will not vote for a party led by someone who sounds retarded and associated with the Unions. For me I doubt he will still be leader come the next general election.

I think it's ludicrous to make those statements on the day of his election as leader, 4.5 years before thenext general election.


Or to try and second guess the entire electorate.


Negative judgements now are just Murdoch/Associated Press inspired bullshit.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • If you're a fundraising intermediary, reporting promptly and accurately on how you've raised and spent funds seems quite important.
    • Does anyone know when the next SNT meeting is? I am fed up with my son being mugged on East Dulwich Grove! 
    • The issue must be everywhere at the moment. I was visiting a friend last week in Bermondsey, think we were walking  down Linton Rd & we dodged 7 dog poos. It was disgusting. 
    • Thanks for your message — I actually took the time to look into what CityHive does before posting my original comment, and I’d encourage anyone with questions to do the same. Yes, the Companies House filings are overdue — but from what I’ve gathered, this seems likely to be an accountant or admin issue, not some sign of ill intent. A lot of small, community-based organisations face challenges keeping up with formalities, especially when they’re focused on immediate needs like food distribution. Let’s not forget CityHive is a not-for-profit, volunteer-powered CIC — not a corporate machine. As for the directors, people stepping down or being replaced is often about capacity or commitment — which is completely normal in the voluntary and community sector. New directors are sometimes appointed when others can no longer give the time. It doesn’t automatically mean bad governance — it just means people’s circumstances change. CityHive’s actual work speaks volumes. They buy most of the food they distribute — fresh produce, essential groceries, and shelf-stable items — and then deliver it to food banks, soup kitchens, and community projects across London. The food doesn’t stay with CityHive — it goes out to local food hubs, and from there, directly to people who need it most. And while yes, there may be a few paid staff handling logistics or admin, there’s a huge volunteer effort behind the scenes that often goes unseen. Regular people giving their time to drive vans, sort donations, load pallets, pack food parcels — that’s what keeps things running. And when people don’t volunteer? Those same tasks still need to be done — which means they have to be paid for. Otherwise, the whole thing grinds to a halt. As the need grows, organisations like CityHive will inevitably need more support — both in people and funding. But the bigger issue here isn’t one small CIC trying to make ends meet. The real issue is the society we live in — and a government that isn’t playing its part in eradicating poverty. If it were, organisations like CityHive, The Felix Project, City Harvest, FareShare, and the Trussell Trust wouldn’t need to exist, let alone be thriving. They thrive because the need is growing. That’s not a reflection on them — it’s a reflection on a broken system that allows people to go hungry in one of the richest cities in the world. If you're in doubt about what they’re doing, go check their Instagram: @cityhivemedia. You’ll see the real organisations and people receiving food, sharing thanks, and showing how far the impact reaches. Even Southwark Foodbank has received food from CityHive — that alone should speak volumes. So again — how does any of this harm you personally? Why spend time trying to discredit a group trying to support those who are falling through the cracks? We need more people lifting others up — not adding weight to those already carrying the load.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...