GEORGE Quail (Letters, June 18) is right to question Jenny Hjul's claims ("Why Labour must learn to embrace Blairism again", The Herald, June 16).
New Labour's popularity was destroyed by the same policies it adopted from the Conservatives which it believed won it elections. Especially deregulation, because it was deregulation which allowed the banks to create "innovative" (dodgy) "financial products" like collateralised debt obligations. And it was the realisation that these "assets" held by the banks were actually worthless which led to the banking crisis and subsequent recession. That lost Labour the 2010 election and the trust of many voters.
Even Margaret Thatcher's then Chancellor, Nigel Lawson, has admitted her 1986 "Big Bang" deregulation of the City of London contributed to causing the banking crisis.
The idea that more of the same - adopting every Conservative policy going - will restore Labour's popularity is unlikely. It needs to win back the votes of people who used to be Labour voters but stopped voting, or started voting for other parties, because Labour became Tory Lite.
Ms Hjul also repeats the common myth that Ed Miliband lost this year because he was too left-wing. In fact Mr Miliband's policies and rhetoric barely differed from those of the Blair/Brown era, or those of the Conservative party. His one major radical policy was a nationalised National Investment Bank, which was not even an issue in the election, and is not even controversial for German conservatives like the Christian Democrats. Mr Miliband didn't focus on policies that would encourage people to turn out and vote Labour. He refused even to adopt renationalisation of the railways, despite polls showing two-thirds of voters back it, including a majority of Ukip voters and half of Conservative voters.
If the campaign had focused more on the National Investment Bank and a policy of issuing money to those in need instead of cutting benefits ; and of providing low interest government loans or grants to small and medium-sized businesses and for scientific and technological Research and Design, Labour might have done much better.
Duncan McFarlane,
Beanshields, Braidwood, Carluke.
THE Nuneaton TV debut of the four potential UK Labour leaders was reminiscent of Abba in the final throes of their once glittering career ("First Minister becomes Labour hustings theme", The Herald, June 18). Two females, two males, all formerly in unison, now in complete disharmony as to the future direction of their once-great party. All doubtless sincere in their individual "my way" submissions to succeed. I would suggest none of the quartet sparkled, far less shown as a potential leader.
Possibly Jeremy Corbyn, the left-wing outsider, with his impassioned denouncement of Tony Blair and the Iraq war was best received by the audience.
By the continual use of the first person singular, Ms Liz Kendal's performance was alarmingly Messianic (reminiscent of the late Lady Thatcher in her early years). The bold Liz claimed the Tories "will be in fear of me." Surely an alarming comment for all of us?
Meanwhile, the two main players, Andy Burnham and Yvette Cooper. acquitted themselves without any obvious blunder. However, both failed to inspire. There was an apparent lack of original thinking by both.
Interestingly, the one issue that all four candidates agreed on was the meteoric rise and proven ability of Nicola Sturgeon. In being gracious and fulsome of praise all four acknowledged not only the arrival but success of a national party leader.
Allan C Steele,
22 Forres Avenue, Giffnock.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article