Robin Cook

[Dollymarie]

Ex labour foreign secratary has died while we were all at the footie.

Had a heart attack and died while out walking with his wife and other friends.

Dollymarie

[Guest MaloneFM]

Blimey!

Heard on Channel 4 news he was ill. Took out the Malone mutt and now he's dead.

They will all say how brilliant a politician he was now. Except little Tone.

[annanimo]

Yes, I've just seen that on the Yahoo News website.

Very sudden and unexpected.

People don't often get upset when politicians pass away, but Robin Cook I think will be sadly missed. He was a man of conviction and substance and not afraid to stand up for what he believed.

The Commons will be a worse place without him.

[redrocks]

Yes, I've just seen that on the Yahoo News website.

Very sudden and unexpected.

People don't often get upset when politicians pass away, but Robin Cook I think will be sadly missed.  He was a man of conviction and substance and not afraid to stand up for what he believed.

The Commons will be a worse place without him.

←

Plus, there'll be no one left to dress up as a leprechaun at the St Paddy's do in the Commons bar from now on.

[cidergeorge]

That's a real shame and sad piece of news, a politician who actually had principles. Many people in the Labour party could have learnt from him.

[Matty H]

A bitter man who let his bitterness at not being able to get his own way, spill into his politics. Wont be missed by most of the labour party

[annanimo]

A bitter man who let his bitterness at not being able to get his own way, spill into his politics. Wont be missed by most of the labour party

←

No, I'm sure he won't, and I suppose we'll have a Blairite, a safe pair of hands who won't say anything contentious, returned in the Livingston by-election.

There are people like myself, who have become increasingly disillusioned with the Labour Party, to whom individuals like Robin Cook appealed. He was not going to tow the party line. In regards the Iraq issue, Cook was the cabinet member with the most specialist knowledge of middle-eastern politics having made his name in tackling the Conservatives over arms to Iraq. I wouldn't say it was bitterness that got the better of him - it was principle.

Not that the Labour Party knows the meaning of the word "principle".

[tinman-is-god]

No, I'm sure he won't, and I suppose we'll have a Blairite, a safe pair of hands who won't say anything contentious, returned in the Livingston by-election.

There are people like myself, who have become increasingly disillusioned with the Labour Party, to whom individuals like Robin Cook appealed. He was not going to tow the party line. In regards the Iraq issue, Cook was the cabinet member with the most specialist knowledge of middle-eastern politics having made his name in tackling the Conservatives over arms to Iraq. I wouldn't say it was bitterness that got the better of him - it was principle.

Not that the Labour Party knows the meaning of the word "principle".

I have always wondered about how left wing labour followers feel about new labour. On the one hand, Blair seems to stand for everything the old labour party don't, such as Clause 4, yet on the other hand, he has been the longest serving Labour PM. Let's face it, when Labour had a hard-line left wing approcach- of which many would call 'proper' labour, they got slaughtered at the polls, although they were facing the electorally popular Thatcher at the time. Would you rather that Labour had stuck to their trade-union, socialist background, and continued to offer nationalisation of industry as an economic policy?

On the flip side, Blair modernised the party, and made it electable. From 1979 to 1997, when Labour was, for the most of it, very socialist, their results were awful. So, would you have rather continued along this road of failure, or do you not feel that Blair is what the party needed to become electable? I will be interested to see the feedback!

[Spud55]

I have always wondered about how left wing labour followers feel about new labour. On the one hand, Blair seems to stand for everything the old labour party don't, such as Clause 4, yet on the other hand, he has been the longest serving Labour PM. Let's face it, when Labour had a hard-line left wing approcach- of which many would call 'proper' labour, they got slaughtered at the polls, although they were facing the electorally popular Thatcher at the time. Would you rather that Labour had stuck to their trade-union, socialist background, and continued to offer nationalisation of industry as an economic policy?

On the flip side, Blair modernised the party, and made it electable. From 1979 to 1997, when Labour was, for the most of it, very socialist, their results were awful. So, would you have rather continued along this road of failure, or do you not feel that Blair is what the party needed to become electable? I will be interested to see the feedback!

←

Sort of happy that Labour are in power, mildly irritated that they only won by nicking the torys ground from under them. But very irritated by their poor management of this country.

I don't want them to return to old labour as that would be cutting off my nose to spite my face as they would basically gift power back to the tory's but some common sense on many issues wouldn't go far.

They are slowly putting this country back together, but i just wish that they would realise that randomly bunging money at a problem does not make it go away. Yes they are putting a lot of money into things but they are seeing little return on it because just throw money at things and it doesn't make much difference without adequate management of the funds. So as it stand we are paying a lot of tax for labour to toss blindly at problems, which creates problems, actually make some obvious difference and the tax burden on people becomes less and less important as there are few people who would have a problem with higher taxes (much higher than they are now) if it was making public services very good, but that simply isn't happening and questions must be asked.

[annanimo]

I have always wondered about how left wing labour followers feel about new labour. On the one hand, Blair seems to stand for everything the old labour party don't, such as Clause 4, yet on the other hand, he has been the longest serving Labour PM. Let's face it, when Labour had a hard-line left wing approcach- of which many would call 'proper' labour, they got slaughtered at the polls, although they were facing the electorally popular Thatcher at the time. Would you rather that Labour had stuck to their trade-union, socialist background, and continued to offer nationalisation of industry as an economic policy?

On the flip side, Blair modernised the party, and made it electable. From 1979 to 1997, when Labour was, for the most of it, very socialist, their results were awful. So, would you have rather continued along this road of failure, or do you not feel that Blair is what the party needed to become electable? I will be interested to see the feedback!

←

Well, I voted Conservative in the last two elections!

Why? Because they are more representative of people than "New" Labour!

A lot of my left-leaning friends disagree with me, but I don't feel anything positive about yet another term of Labour government. Because it isn't a Labour government. Blair is a Tory who doesn't like blue and his blatant lack of regard for electoral democracy, his insistence on further dismantling the NHS, his pandering to the business elite, etc. doesn't exactly inspire me. In fact, I am currently working with a Conservative MP to oppose the government's proposed Mental Health Bill which if passed would be one of the most right wing pieces of legislation in our history.

Oh, and I won't go into the Serious Crime and Disorder Act, which makes protests outside parliament and Downing Street illegal...

You have an interesting interpretation of the 80s and 90s, and I'm not sure I go along with it entirely. The Conservatives also won because it was at a time of great economic expansion, the emphasis on the individual meaning more people were realistically aspiring to furthering themselves in ways that were not previously possible, e.g. right to buy. It was difficult for Labour to oust a government that, although unpopular, was actually delivering in many respects. Many people had never had it so good (to quote a former PM). There was an ideological opposition to Tory policy, yes, but people only tend to vote against a government when they're hit where it hurts - i.e. in the pocket.

This happened in the late 80s/early 90s. Thatcher became a liability - had she not been replaced Labour would have won easily in 92. Unfortunately, Kinnock was also a liability and narrowly lost the election. However, with a tiny majority and an electorate increasingly fed up with a Conservative Party seemingly unable to deliver anything but sleaze and incompetence the very nice John Major could not take the Tories anywhere but into opposition. Defeat was inevitable. The telling sign was when the corporate and business elites started to lend their support to "New" Labour.

But Labour didn't have to reform so dramatically to be elected. The Tories ineffectiveness in the 90s had ensured that. John Smith recognised some reform was needed but wanted it to be slow, gradual and considered. I didn't agree with Smith in every respect but felt he had at least got some principles.

What kind of Labour Party would I like? Well, living in the past is great, but it doesn't take the nation forward. Socialism for me is not a political ideology - it's a social philosophy. it isn't set in stone or in the pages of a 150 year old manifesto - it is flexible, compassionate and considerate. But that doesn't mean it isn't principled. While I accept the Labour Party needed to adjust to some realities in the 90s, this didn't give Blair, a political opportunist with little regard for the Labour Party (or as we see later, parliament), a licence to destroy so much of what the Labour Party had historically stood up for and campaigned for.

The Labour Party today represents very little, if anything. I am not going to vote for them because they represented something 20 years ago. I don't understand why workers in the North East for example continue to vote Labour when they're probably better represented by other parties.

Maybe in due course the Labour Party will return to the centre left of British politics but currently they're so right wing on some issues it is frightening.

[Rednready]

I have always wondered about how left wing labour followers feel about new labour. On the one hand, Blair seems to stand for everything the old labour party don't, such as Clause 4, yet on the other hand, he has been the longest serving Labour PM. Let's face it, when Labour had a hard-line left wing approcach- of which many would call 'proper' labour, they got slaughtered at the polls, although they were facing the electorally popular Thatcher at the time. Would you rather that Labour had stuck to their trade-union, socialist background, and continued to offer nationalisation of industry as an economic policy?

On the flip side, Blair modernised the party, and made it electable. From 1979 to 1997, when Labour was, for the most of it, very socialist, their results were awful. So, would you have rather continued along this road of failure, or do you not feel that Blair is what the party needed to become electable? I will be interested to see the feedback!

←

My niece is a conservative party member, her uncle was a Labour politician in Australia. I get weekly "dialogue" from both.

Between the lines they say that Blair has pinched the best of Conservative policies and presented them better than the Conservatives , who have no competitive leader. This = votes.

[tinman-is-god]

Well, I voted Conservative in the last two elections!

Why? Because they are more representative of people than "New" Labour!

A lot of my left-leaning friends disagree with me, but I don't feel anything positive about yet another term of Labour government. Because it isn't a Labour government. Blair is a Tory who doesn't like blue and his blatant lack of regard for electoral democracy, his insistence on further dismantling the NHS, his pandering to the business elite, etc. doesn't exactly inspire me. In fact, I am currently working with a Conservative MP to oppose the government's proposed Mental Health Bill which if passed would be one of the most right wing pieces of legislation in our history.

Oh, and I won't go into the Serious Crime and Disorder Act, which makes protests outside parliament and Downing Street illegal...

You have an interesting interpretation of the 80s and 90s, and I'm not sure I go along with it entirely. The Conservatives also won because it was at a time of great economic expansion, the emphasis on the individual meaning more people were realistically aspiring to furthering themselves in ways that were not previously possible, e.g. right to buy. It was difficult for Labour to oust a government that, although unpopular, was actually delivering in many respects. Many people had never had it so good (to quote a former PM). There was an ideological opposition to Tory policy, yes, but people only tend to vote against a government when they're hit where it hurts - i.e. in the pocket.

This happened in the late 80s/early 90s. Thatcher became a liability - had she not been replaced Labour would have won easily in 92. Unfortunately, Kinnock was also a liability and narrowly lost the election. However, with a tiny majority and an electorate increasingly fed up with a Conservative Party seemingly unable to deliver anything but sleaze and incompetence the very nice John Major could not take the Tories anywhere but into opposition. Defeat was inevitable. The telling sign was when the corporate and business elites started to lend their support to "New" Labour.

But Labour didn't have to reform so dramatically to be elected. The Tories ineffectiveness in the 90s had ensured that. John Smith recognised some reform was needed but wanted it to be slow, gradual and considered. I didn't agree with Smith in every respect but felt he had at least got some principles.

What kind of Labour Party would I like? Well, living in the past is great, but it doesn't take the nation forward. Socialism for me is not a political ideology - it's a social philosophy. it isn't set in stone or in the pages of a 150 year old manifesto - it is flexible, compassionate and considerate. But that doesn't mean it isn't principled. While I accept the Labour Party needed to adjust to some realities in the 90s, this didn't give Blair, a political opportunist with little regard for the Labour Party (or as we see later, parliament), a licence to destroy so much of what the Labour Party had historically stood up for and campaigned for.

The Labour Party today represents very little, if anything. I am not going to vote for them because they represented something 20 years ago. I don't understand why workers in the North East for example continue to vote Labour when they're probably better represented by other parties.

Maybe in due course the Labour Party will return to the centre left of British politics but currently they're so right wing on some issues it is frightening.

Top post! I agree with what you say about why the Conservatives won a lot of the votes in the 80's, and i am glad to hear that you vote conservative, if not a little surprised! I agree with the point about why so many traditional labour voters continue to vote labour, but i suppose that there are many out there who dislike the conservative party so much, even if they did agree with them, they would never vote for them. There is hope though, in Sunderland south there was a 4% swing from 2001 to the 2005 election. Mind you, the day the Conservatives win Sunderland South will be very long from now!

[annanimo]

Top post! I agree with what you say about why the Conservatives won a lot of the votes in the 80's, and i am glad to hear that you vote conservative, if not a little surprised! I agree with the point about why so many traditional labour voters continue to vote labour, but i suppose that there are many out there who dislike the conservative party so much, even if they did agree with them, they would never vote for them. There is hope though, in Sunderland south there was a 4% swing from 2001 to the 2005 election. Mind you, the day the Conservatives win Sunderland South will be very long from now!

←

I voted Conservative because they are principled and I know what they stand for - even if I don't agree with some of those principles. I wouldn't vote for the Lib Dems or Labour because on the whole they are a bunch of unprincipled opportunists who will compromise themselves to be elected.

I voted Conservative because of what they are NOW - not what they were in the 80s. Likewise, this is the reason I will now not vote Labour.

In reagrds socialism, the best "socialism" of recent years was advocated by John Major - "the classless society". You might think it's strange, but for me that is the essence of socialism. It's not about "class consciousness" or "the class war" - thinly disguised excuses for prejudice. It's about creating a fairer society. Are New Labour doing that? I don't think so.

Having said all this, if Robin Cook, Tam Dalyell or Tony Benn decided to stand in my consituency, I may be inclined to vote Labour once again. Principles, you see...

[tinman-is-god]

Having said all this, if Robin Cook, Tam Dalyell or Tony Benn decided to stand in my consituency, I may be inclined to vote Labour once again. Principles, you see...

I know what you mean, i have far more respect for people like Tony Benn than someone like Peter Hain- Peter Hain has to be the biggest turn around in politics- to see him supporting so much legislation that cuts down on civil liberties is incredible after all the work he did in the 70s/80s to try and protect civil liberties.

[annanimo]

I know what you mean, i have far more respect for people like Tony Benn than someone like Peter Hain- Peter Hain has to be the biggest turn around in politics- to see him supporting so much legislation that cuts down on civil liberties is incredible after all the work he did in the 70s/80s to try and protect civil liberties.

←

Yes. Peter Hain is one person I thoroughly dislike. I would use stronger language to describe how I feel but would probably get banned from the forum. Ditto John Prescott: what a turnaround with him. It's not just that he's turned from being militant to respectable, a lot of people do that - it's that he's advocating measures he himself would have vociferously opposed years ago.

Robin Cook on the other hand was by and large consistent and never forgot his roots, principles and more importantly his constituents.

This has been more interesting a conversation than I thought. For all our differences it seems we have so much in common!!!!!

Edit: due two to meny stoopid speling mistaiks

[tinman-is-god]

This has been more interesting a conversation than I thought. For all our differences it seems we have so much in common!!!!!

I was about to say the same thing! I respect anyone who is passionate about politics, regardless of their beliefs. I respect communists, who have read the Manifesto, and know what they are talking about, as much as I respect a true blue Tory. I would far rather someone be into politics and have different beliefs than none at all. While we are on the subject of having lots in common, what do you think of George Galloway? I actually think he may go about it in the wrong way, but at least he has principles...i respect him !

[Spud55]

I voted Conservative because they are principled and I know what they stand for - even if I don't agree with some of those principles.  I wouldn't vote for the Lib Dems or Labour because on the whole they are a bunch of unprincipled opportunists who will compromise themselves to be elected.

I voted Conservative because of what they are NOW - not what they were in the 80s.  Likewise, this is the reason I will now not vote Labour.

In reagrds socialism, the best "socialism" of recent years was advocated by John Major - "the classless society".  You might think it's strange, but for me that is the essence of socialism.  It's not about "class consciousness" or "the class war" - thinly disguised excuses for prejudice.  It's about creating a fairer society.  Are New Labour doing that?  I don't think so.

Having said all this, if Robin Cook, Tam Dalyell or Tony Benn decided to stand in my consituency, I may be inclined to vote Labour once again.  Principles, you see...

←

Thats the exact reason i didn't vote tory, i didn't think they had much in the way of principals or policies or well anything really, excep labour = bad, we will do everything different but we won't explain how and pay for it with monopoly money, well i'm buggered if i know where they were going to get it from.

When Howard became leader of the Tories i was actually quite optimistic that he would bring some new life into the party, come up with some viable policies unlike the huge budget gaps that IDS had, but although he did better he didn't do anywhere near enough to make me even consider voting for them, saying that though Labour did even less, and i couldn't bering myself to put an X in the labour box the first time i had the priviledge of voting. So i plumped for the Lib dems who probably just about are the closest to my beliefs.

Will be interesting to see what happens to the Torys if David Davis wins the leadership battle, it will hopefully be the end of thatchers legacy on the party, and from what i've read of him saying he seems like a very down to earth guy and talks some sense.

I can't see myself voting for Labour next time but if DD gets in as the tory leader i am expecting good things of him and would consider voting for them, if they come up with some policies and don't have large holes in their budgets.

Never understood the apathy of politics really, i find it highly interesting, and yes i know they spout rubbish but it's getting past that and seeing what they actually mean that makes it interesting. But them i am a bit odd and have had a growing interest in Politics since the age of about 9

[annanimo]

Thats the exact reason i didn't vote tory, i didn't think they had much in the way of principals or policies or well anything really, excep labour = bad, we will do everything different but we won't explain how and pay for it with monopoly money, well i'm buggered if i know where they were going to get it from.

When Howard became leader of the Tories i was actually quite optimistic that he would bring some new life into the party, come up with some viable policies unlike the huge budget gaps that IDS had, but although he did better he didn't do anywhere near enough to make me even consider voting for them, saying that though Labour did even less, and i couldn't bering myself to put an X in the labour box the first time i had the priviledge of voting.  So i plumped for the Lib dems who probably just about are the closest to my beliefs.

Will be interesting to see what happens to the Torys if David Davis wins the leadership battle, it will hopefully be the end of thatchers legacy on the party, and from what i've read of him saying he seems like a very down to earth guy and talks some sense.

I can't see myself voting for Labour next time but if DD gets in as the tory leader i am expecting good things of him and would consider voting for them, if they come up with some policies and don't have large holes in their budgets.

Never understood the apathy of politics really, i find it highly interesting, and yes i know they spout rubbish but it's getting past that and seeing what they actually mean that makes it interesting.  But them i am a bit odd and have had a growing interest in Politics since the age of about 9 

←

Never understood the apathy of politics? No, neither am I. I have never been apathetic about politics, but I have been apathetic about the three major political parties. Especially on a local level. I have never been convinced that the best candidate for my consituency should necessarily be provided by either Labour the Tories or the Lib Dems.

I would argue and say the Tories are principled. It's just that I don't agree with their principles, especially on immigration, law and order, health, etc. But at least I know what they stand for. Unlike "New" Labour. And I would add the Lib Dems. As an active local campaigner I found our Lib Dem representatives to be duplicitous and supportive of any idea that may increase their profile. I'm not saying that's typical of Lib Dems everywhere, but it certainly where I am.

David Davis. Interesting. We'll have to wait and see. I think he will appeal to a wider audience than the likes of Portillo or Clarke could have done. But I think we should also give some credit to Howard, who has at least managed to unite the Conservative party and present a credible opposition.

In regards the point raised about George Galloway. I think he cynically used ethnic tensions in Bethnal Green and Bow to his advantage, which was socially irresponsible. And he seems to have an over-inflated view of his own significance. I remember him as an MP in Glasgow Kelvinside and I cared little for him then. Socialism for him was a kid of badge he wore to forge a reputation for himself. But he is a terrific orator. I agree with a lot of what he says in principle, but find his attitude at times objectionable. Truth spoken with the wrong attitude is worse than a lie.

Coming back to Robin Cook - in his resignation speech he didn't feel the need to go on the offensive. he was critical in a considered fashion and demoinstrated that although he did not respect the decision of the cabinet, he respected its members. He came across as principled rather than egotistical. The fact he received a standing ovation from all sides of the house demonstrates this perfectly.

[Guest SW Valleys Red]

I voted Conservative because they are principled

What the #####!! I really have heard it all now. As for John Major's 'classless society', you should look beyond the rhetoric and focus on the reality.

As a critic of neo-Lieralism, I would say don't believe the rhetoric until you have lived from the bottom up.

[Spud55]

Agree with most of what you say really. Although where i was the local Lib dem seemed to talk more sense than the rest.

I shant get started on Golloway, fair enough he has principals but then saddam had principals, didn't make him a descent bloke just like his bud Galloway.

[annanimo]

Yes, the Conservatives ARE principled. The WRONG principles in my view. I actually voted Conservative becuase in my constituency the Tory had been a good MP and I had worked with him for local issues. I don't care for the party much but i thought he was better than the alternative.

The "classless society" wasn't thought out properly - agreed. It WAS rhetoric. There was NO substance to it. But the idea is a good one. There needs to be a clear vision on how to make this a reality. Major didn't have the answers but at least he had the general idea.

I didn't say I believed the rhetoric. But I don't accept things because people tell me to. I don't accept that I should vote Labour just because a lot of similar-minded people seem convinced they are a workers party when the evidence suggests otherwise.

As for living from the bottom up, you don't want to hear my life story but please don't assume things about people you don't know.