<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Tom Copley says the Lib Dems are too soft for the hard budget</title>
	<atom:link href="http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2010/06/22/tom-copley-says-the-lib-dems-are-too-soft-for-the-hard-budget/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2010/06/22/tom-copley-says-the-lib-dems-are-too-soft-for-the-hard-budget/</link>
	<description>Inside Labour Politics</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 May 2012 10:28:04 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Richard Grayson</title>
		<link>http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2010/06/22/tom-copley-says-the-lib-dems-are-too-soft-for-the-hard-budget/comment-page-1/#comment-6592</link>
		<dc:creator>Richard Grayson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Nov 2010 13:29:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://labour-uncut.co.uk/?p=1277#comment-6592</guid>
		<description>&quot;Richard Grayson, writes on Comment is Free that his party’s leadership has “abandoned the party’s centre left roots”. He is wrong – they have no roots to abandon&quot;.

Tom - glad to see my piece was read beyond LD circles, though I&#039;m afraid I only just found your comment.  I want to say though that I don&#039;t see how you can sustain an argument that the LDs have no centre-left roots.  In the first place, I&#039;d simply cite Hobhouse, Keynes and Beveridge, the last two of whom were cited by Ed Miliband in his first leader&#039;s speech at Labour conference as being influences on him.  More widely, you seem to take &#039;centre-left&#039;as being very narrowly defined as far as the economy is concerned when you dismiss LD centre-left credentials by saying that we have &#039;no base in the working class or organised labour&#039;.  The &#039;working class&#039; has long ceased to vote cohesively.  Indeed, simply having a base in the w-c does not by definition mean you are on the centre-left (Thatcher being an example).  The LDs continue to win hundreds of thousands if not millions of working-class votes.  Going back much further, the old Liberal Party was strongly supported by many unions.  Meanwhile, it was the Liberal Party which advocated co-operative ownership and more power for workers throughout the 1950s to 1970s.  I think you ned to be careful about writing us all off.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Richard Grayson, writes on Comment is Free that his party’s leadership has “abandoned the party’s centre left roots”. He is wrong – they have no roots to abandon&#8221;.</p>
<p>Tom &#8211; glad to see my piece was read beyond LD circles, though I&#8217;m afraid I only just found your comment.  I want to say though that I don&#8217;t see how you can sustain an argument that the LDs have no centre-left roots.  In the first place, I&#8217;d simply cite Hobhouse, Keynes and Beveridge, the last two of whom were cited by Ed Miliband in his first leader&#8217;s speech at Labour conference as being influences on him.  More widely, you seem to take &#8216;centre-left&#8217;as being very narrowly defined as far as the economy is concerned when you dismiss LD centre-left credentials by saying that we have &#8216;no base in the working class or organised labour&#8217;.  The &#8216;working class&#8217; has long ceased to vote cohesively.  Indeed, simply having a base in the w-c does not by definition mean you are on the centre-left (Thatcher being an example).  The LDs continue to win hundreds of thousands if not millions of working-class votes.  Going back much further, the old Liberal Party was strongly supported by many unions.  Meanwhile, it was the Liberal Party which advocated co-operative ownership and more power for workers throughout the 1950s to 1970s.  I think you ned to be careful about writing us all off.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Summing up a Labour Uncut piece in&#8230; &#171; Chrisjw133&#39;s Blog</title>
		<link>http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2010/06/22/tom-copley-says-the-lib-dems-are-too-soft-for-the-hard-budget/comment-page-1/#comment-1874</link>
		<dc:creator>Summing up a Labour Uncut piece in&#8230; &#171; Chrisjw133&#39;s Blog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Jun 2010 11:49:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://labour-uncut.co.uk/?p=1277#comment-1874</guid>
		<description>[...] &#8220;Lib Dem&#8217;s have no principles or any roots, especially not in the centre left cos they don&amp;#8...r.&#8221; [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] &#8220;Lib Dem&#8217;s have no principles or any roots, especially not in the centre left cos they don&amp;#8&#8230;r.&#8221; [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

