Sentences with phrase «then labour needs»

Not exact matches

So if there are policies that would boost potential output — the sum of labour force growth and productivity growth — then we need to pursue them.

City haven't had an easy time particularly away from home this season, labouring to a 2 - 0 win at Brighton on the opening weekend and then needing a dramatic late winner at Dean Court to collect three points against Bournemouth.

In Dr Amy's picture the variability is absent which is very abnormal, but another trace may have normal variability (a nice squiggly line) with some quite impressive decels which you could wait on for a while, try dome position changes etc. it's not uncommon to think «crap, we're going to need a C Section», but then the problem resolves and you can continue with labour.

, and her aura was not one which installed colempte confidence in me of her competence.Eventually, we reached a stage where the lead midwife announced that upon another examination (that we had been told was advisable due to the amount of time my partner had been in labour) that she would be calling in an ambulance as the baby was apparently taking longer to recover it «s heart rate between contractions than it had been previously which was a concern, and that my partner needed to be dealt with in hospital.The reassurance of the surroundings of home was soon replaced by a period of comparative chaos and strange faces which then developed into me travelling with my now scared and distressed partner in a speeding ambulance across a busy city road system amidst late afternoon traffic.

Andrew Lansley, shadow health secretary, said: «If we are to avoid stigmatising children after being weighed then there needs to be sympathetic follow - up care but Labour have failed to address the chronic shortage of school nurses.»

In fact Stephen Beer claimed Labour needed to respond to the tough decisions it faced on the economy, outline an economic plan for the future rather than a retrospective attack on Coalition policy and most importantly close the economic credibility gap that was first conceived and then grew during Labour's last years in office.

Interestingly, the UK Border Agency — responsible for securing the UK border at air, rail and sea ports and migration controls — was set up in 2008 following a very similar set of criticisms that forced the then Labour Home Secretary John Reid to declare that the Home Office's immigration directorate was «not fit for purpose» and that a single Agency was needed to secure effective and efficient management of the UK border.

I've argued on my own blog (http://hands-of-the-many.blogspot.com/2010/05/next-labour-will-change-be-moderate-or.html) that New Labour represented an understandable compromise with the upper class so that the overwhelming hostility to the party in the press would be lessened, and the party could communicate its message to a wider audience - and then, build the coalition which brought the party to office, and enabled the much - needed social democratic reforms to take place.

It really does need to have some socialism in it's blood the name labour is now seen more Tory then Laboulabour is now seen more Tory then LabourLabour red.

For example, if Labour is serious about radical economic change then it needs to consider how it can build an alliance of social and political forces to support it.

If the forecasters and betting markets are right in their central forecasts then Con + LD+DUP combined will be short of a majority and so a Labour led government should form if they can secure the support of the SNP and probably others, including the Liberal Democrats, will be needed too: a potentially messy and unstable situation but also one where there is sufficient similarity in ideological perspective for policy agreement on plenty of issues.

Brian: if you can't see the difference between a minority Labour government that - in your words (from your original posts on this issue)- dares the Lib Dems to vote it down, and a coalition government based on a mutually agreed set of objectives, then you need to take a second look.

(And as James says, if what was on the table was Labour becoming a liberal party, then why would they need us?)

After all, these were the lingering memories to overcome of the debacle of 1976, when the then Labour government needed to seek a loan from the IMF to shore up the Pound in the foreign exchange markets.

If you want to make common cuase with Labour's social liberasl, as I hope you will, then I think you need to be more willing to give your own party — and the Coalition government — some stick.

If a Labour politician can't take people criticising how little they are «shifting» while saying we, the people, need more a voice then they're a hypocrite, simple as that.

But if the party is to break fully with this restricted and restricting vision, as Purnell seems to want, then Labour must stop trying to deny citizens the tools and spaces they need to confront power with conscience.

When the Tories were then hit by sleaze and a new change was needed, the public chose the Labour alternative because it was a much improved alternative.

If the Tories are serious in their bid to claim the mantle of opposition, then they would need to win this seat, which Labour worried about losing in 2011 (given the Conservative favourable boundary changes).

The weekend's policy decisions - which will still need to be properly formulated in Westminster and then passed in the party convention - will probably find their way into the Labour manifesto.

The discussions do not need to lead to a firm policy programme, but we need to find out what views on Labour's future direction exist within the Labour Movement so we can then have a meaningful leadership contest in which the candidates and those voting understand each other.

For the Tories to win the next election outright, they need to claw back voters from Ukip, hope Labour loses their votes back to the Lib Dems, and then somehow win over a whole bunch of other voters they failed to persuade in 2010.

If Labour need to make a break from New Labour then get rid of Blair because it stinks of his control within Labour at the moment, saying immigration is a Tory problem would make the public laugh out loud, saying we did make some mistakes, to try and get UKIP voters back, will not work, you tried to change the voting pattern by bringing in poor immigrants who did not end up voting.

If Labour really want to gain power then they need to address the regions directly and try to get their traditional heartlands back on side.

Scottish Labour needs clarity over its key purpose and then needs to find a way of expressing it in language activists can explain and voters can understand.

We will always need a party to take over when the Tories become old tired and useless, it may take a few terms but it will happen and then labour will win one or two terms and then think they are back have made it the Tories are gone only to find it's wrong.

The more seats a party or grouping has, the more chance it has of forming a government - with 198 seats out of 646 the Conservative Party could only form a government if significant numbers of other MP's decided to back them, as happened in 1924 when there was a situation that the Conservatives didn't want to form a coalition with either other main party and equally the Liberals didn't want a coalition with Labour and the Liberals and Conservatives saw it as an opportunity to allow Labour into government but in a situation in which legislation was still reliant on Liberal and Conservative votes and they could be brought down at the most suitable time, supposing the notional gains were accurate and in the improbable event of the next election going exactly the same way in terms of votes then 214 out of 650 is 32.93 % of seats compared to at 198 out of 646 seats - 30.65 % of seats and the Conservative Party would then be 14 seats closer towards a total neccessary to form a government allowing for the greater number of seats, on the one hand the Conservatives need Labour to fail but equally they need to succeed themselves given that the Liberal Democrats appear likely to oppose anyone forming a government who does not embark on a serious programme to introduce PR, in addition PC & SNP would expect moves towards Independence for Scotland and Wales, the SDLP will be likely to back Labour and equally UKIP would want a committment to withdraw from Europe and anyway will be likely to be in small numbers if any, pretty much that leaves cutting a deal with the DUP which would only add the backing of an extra 10 - 13 MP's.

If Labour and LibDem wish to lance the conservatives on the issue of civil liberties, then they need to find a way of tying these two seemingly disparate threads together.

What we need is to remove from Labour the words socialist and welfare, then basically attack the Tories steal the name and away you go.

If this was Labour's quiet man turning up the volume, then somebody needs to hit the mute button.

If Labour support falls to 31 per cent and the Conservatives manage 35 per cent then the latter would still be around 15 seats short of an outright majority, but could manage to put together a coalition without the need to rely on the SNP.

And then keep on throwing money, Companies went bust in need of loans and labour did sod all, but as soon as the Banks demanded more, more was given.

The Labour Assembly Against Austerity saw over 200 party activists come together to discuss the cost of living crisis being caused by coalition austerity and the need for Labour to present an inspiring alternative vision that will win the 2015 election and then go on to change people's lives for the better.

If he genuinely wants to return to when Labour was a mass party with substantial roots in working class communities, he needs to recognise that this situation existed primarily because Labour was then a social democratic party which aimed to reform the capitalist system.

then the unions need to put their oen candidates forward has most of this party has we now isnt a true labour party but sadly who do you vote for has its more the same i cant see a way forward but you state the monies from the election 1997 then this must haver been tory money has blair was maggies product put into lanour to take em to the tory lite whot ever i can not in all my days say to my friends vote for them has untill the tb of this party go back to their tory party jeff3

They replied that it might be possible but only with a different Prime Minister and that before they could give an official answer, they would need the approval of the annual Labour Party conference, then in session in Bournemouth.

And that's what we are hoping for, that's what the British people need if they could only examine those particular policies that Labour have put forward then I think things will begin to change.»

Labour and Conservatives have different views, then, on when the cuts need to begin.

The organisation is unlikely to resolve the Labour Party's dilemmas over Brexit, but as the need for an anti-Brexit initiative in line with Party policy becomes clearer, if Open Labour can fill the gap left by the disappearance of the LCC and Compass from the Labour scene then there is much to play for.

What Labour or more accurately Tony Blair and Alan Milburn, then health secretary wanted is what Mr Lansley now aspires to create: a self - improving system run as a regulated market of competing providers driven by patient choice and commissioning in a way that no longer needs direct management from politicians and the health department.

We need to listen to what people worry about with Labour values and policies, then accept where we may be wrong and amend them.

If Labour can not fulfil this role then Britain needs a new band in the centre that listens to what a majority of the public care about, sings better songs, plays gigs that are attended by more than just the die - hard fans of the hard left and starts winning again.

If Labour had done what it needed to four years ago; demonstrated that it understood the public's anxieties over spending with the last Labour government, and moved to win back public trust, then David Cameron would now be in serious trouble.

If Labour don't define themselves, then come the next election the Conservatives will paint the choice as being «the party that took the hard but necessary decisions while Labour suggested nothing» or «the party that took the steps needed to bring the economy back to health, opposed at every step by Labour».

If, however, the public back the Tories, then Labour will need some new responses, and fast.

Tony, I can take what you're saying and applying it to the idea, that Labour had the working class who'd bought their council Home in the early 80's, by the late 80's were back voting labour as unlike in 1983 we weren't standing on manifesto to buy them back and then the swing voters we needed but couldn't quite get in 1992 were the Aspiring lower middle class, skilled blue collar Labour had the working class who'd bought their council Home in the early 80's, by the late 80's were back voting labour as unlike in 1983 we weren't standing on manifesto to buy them back and then the swing voters we needed but couldn't quite get in 1992 were the Aspiring lower middle class, skilled blue collar labour as unlike in 1983 we weren't standing on manifesto to buy them back and then the swing voters we needed but couldn't quite get in 1992 were the Aspiring lower middle class, skilled blue collar voters

But the fact is that if Labour do get 35 per cent, then to keep Ed Miliband out of Downing Street, we will need a significant improvement on the 36 per cent David Cameron got last time.

Then there's a discussion about internationalism that extends as far as saying Labour needs to find a way to make it work, without offering a single idea on how.

In many parts of the world, if you want to marry the person you choose, be gay, be female and economically successful, or avoid daily backbreaking labour carrying water or fetching firewood, then you probably need to move to the city.

«If you are a group of parents, social entrepreneurs and teachers interested in setting up a school in areas where you need new school places, then the Labour government will be on your side.