Come on you labour apologists

[Sour Mash]

I don't see why.

 

Ex Lion Tamer's position seems entirely consistent with mine.

 

What am I missing?

Your statement of "The labour movement died, or at least lies mortally wounded with Blair's new labour project." My take on it was Ex Lion tamer was explaining why they were still Labour "protecting NHS, minimum wage" etc, could have been a response to either I guess.

[View From The Top]

I don't think I suggested you spoke for the majority of Labour supporters. This thread isn't about you. The majority of Labour supporters continued to vote for him and support him. How many serious, determined, well supported attempts were there to oust Blair while he was in office? The point being he was a Labour PM happily supported by the majority of the Labour party.

 

MPs support whoever they think will keep them in their seats. That's why the tory back benchers allow Dave to stay. Constituent party's of all colours, tend to be much more critical until election time, then fall into line.

 

The problem was, as far as I see it anyway, is that those if us on the left had a case of Hobson's Choice; either vote for Tony or risk the tories getting in.

 

My wife voted Labour just to keep the tories out, where as I voted Green, finding myself unable to vote for Blair.

 

How the Left move forward I really don't know but Labour aren't left wing enough for me any more as they squabble and fight for the middle ground with the tories and lib/dems.

 

I guess they are having a crisis of identity as the tories did post-Maastricht.

[Frank's cousin]

But the majority of Labour supporters continued to vote for him.

 

True, but no different from 'traditional' Tory voters who continued voting for Thatcher, despite her overwhelming 'indifference' to the impact on whole communities from policy.

 

And there in lies the biggest problem with politics in this country.... Majority of voting along party lines for parties whose dogma and 'traditions' are not fit for purpose in a modern times.... With a minority so swingers who determine electoral outcome...

 

when parties of all flavours try and modernise, they either alienate 'traditional' supporters or are accused if lacking principles... So they play safe.

 

the sooner we realise that old school labour as well as traditional conservatism are both so out of touch with the needs of this country, the sooner policy will be determined by what is truly most effective, and not by so called traditional values. Sadly, too many resist such pragmatism as it's effectively electoral suicide.... 'The people' don't trust either party, yet trust those wanting new thinking even less... As the yanks say, go figure.

 

there needs to be far more open and transparent communication on the simple things - what it costs to provide a particular standard of public service, how taxation levels would need to be set to fund it, and let folks decide. The complexities of the the fiscal policies of all parties are beyond most folks ability to understand or interest.

 

Meanwhile, the parties bicker, and none think beyond the next election. Government has become a 4/5 year election campaign. There are certain key issues such as health, education, defence, pensions and social security.... Why even healthcare that simply cannot be looked at in short term 5 year chunks or from traditional party lines.... But need 15-20+ pragmatic solutions that are simply right! not driven by party rhetoric.... But common sense is not something our current parties seem to process in any great measure... And sadly the electorate has no stomach to demand it.

[badgerx16]

We're "left" with such policies and governments because in the main that is what the people of this country want. It might not be your choice, but that's one of the downsides of democracy I'm afraid.

 

But that is not how our system works. Firstly because there are the 'safe' seats, whether Tory or Labour it matters not, if you support what is locally the minority party you may as well not bother. You may also get seats where there is the possibility of either of 2 parties getting in, but where voting for any other option is similarly fruitless ( ie voting LD in Southampton ). Thirdly there are the seats that matter - the 'swing' seats that will be contested ( generally ) between Labour and Conservative. It is to tempt the voters in this minority of seats that both parties concentrate their efforts and design their manifestos.

The outcome of this is that for almost all General Elections since WW1, the winning party has had less than 50% of the vote, yet both Thatcher and Blair had majorities of over 100. I doubt there has ever been a GE result where 50% of the registered electorate has voted for the winning party - so how does that give us 'what the people of this country want' ?

[Sour Mash]

True, but no different from 'traditional' Tory voters who continued voting for Thatcher, despite her overwhelming 'indifference' to the impact on whole communities from policy.

 

And there in lies the biggest problem with politics in this country.... Majority of voting along party lines for parties whose dogma and 'traditions' are not fit for purpose in a modern times.... With a minority so swingers who determine electoral outcome...

 

when parties of all flavours try and modernise, they either alienate 'traditional' supporters or are accused if lacking principles... So they play safe.

 

the sooner we realise that old school labour as well as traditional conservatism are both so out of touch with the needs of this country, the sooner policy will be determined by what is truly most effective, and not by so called traditional values. Sadly, too many resist such pragmatism as it's effectively electoral suicide.... 'The people' don't trust either party, yet trust those wanting new thinking even less... As the yanks say, go figure.

 

there needs to be far more open and transparent communication on the simple things - what it costs to provide a particular standard of public service, how taxation levels would need to be set to fund it, and let folks decide. The complexities of the the fiscal policies of all parties are beyond most folks ability to understand or interest.

 

Meanwhile, the parties bicker, and none think beyond the next election. Government has become a 4/5 year election campaign. There are certain key issues such as health, education, defence, pensions and social security.... Why even healthcare that simply cannot be looked at in short term 5 year chunks or from traditional party lines.... But need 15-20+ pragmatic solutions that are simply right! not driven by party rhetoric.... But common sense is not something our current parties seem to process in any great measure... And sadly the electorate has no stomach to demand it.

On your first sentence you're wrong, the difference is that Tory voters don't constantly go on with "She's wasn't really a Tory", "Well I didn't vote for her" and generally pretend she wasn't a key, important part of the Tory party for a long time, in the way that Labour supporters seem to with Blair.

 

With the rest of your post - lots of wish-washy statements about the current situation not really working (it does actually), but no practical suggestion for an alternative system.

Edited 31 October, 2013 by Sour Mash

[Sour Mash]

But that is not how our system works. Firstly because there are the 'safe' seats, whether Tory or Labour it matters not, if you support what is locally the minority party you may as well not bother. You may also get seats where there is the possibility of either of 2 parties getting in, but where voting for any other option is similarly fruitless ( ie voting LD in Southampton ). Thirdly there are the seats that matter - the 'swing' seats that will be contested ( generally ) between Labour and Conservative. It is to tempt the voters in this minority of seats that both parties concentrate their efforts and design their manifestos.

The outcome of this is that for almost all General Elections since WW1, the winning party has had less than 50% of the vote, yet both Thatcher and Blair had majorities of over 100. I doubt there has ever been a GE result where 50% of the registered electorate has voted for the winning party - so how does that give us 'what the people of this country want' ?

No, that's exactly how our system works actually. The two major parties are centre/middle ground because in the main, that is where the majority of the country's political allegience lies. Minority parties are minority parties for a reason, they're not popular and not many people want to vote for them. Yes, PR would give them a couple of seats, as I've said further up the thread, I would personally support PR, but you're kidding yourself if you think it would significantly change the sort of people that will run this country.

 

As for your point on there never being more a GE winner elected with more than 50% of the registered electorate voting for them - well that certainly wouldn't be the case under a PR scheme either, so little difference made there.

[Sour Mash]

MPs support whoever they think will keep them in their seats. That's why the tory back benchers allow Dave to stay. Constituent party's of all colours, tend to be much more critical until election time, then fall into line.

 

The problem was, as far as I see it anyway, is that those if us on the left had a case of Hobson's Choice; either vote for Tony or risk the tories getting in.

 

My wife voted Labour just to keep the tories out, where as I voted Green, finding myself unable to vote for Blair.

 

How the Left move forward I really don't know but Labour aren't left wing enough for me any more as they squabble and fight for the middle ground with the tories and lib/dems.

 

I guess they are having a crisis of identity as the tories did post-Maastricht.

Have the likes of the Socialist Workers Party or any similar groups seen a rise in membership/activity in the last 10 years or so in reaction to Labour not being left-wing enough for it's supporters? In a similar way to UKIP appealing to some that disapprove of the current Tories' stance on Europe etc for example?

[badgerx16]

As for your point on there never being more a GE winner elected with more than 50% of the registered electorate voting for them - well that certainly wouldn't be the case under a PR scheme either, so little difference made there.

 

But there would be a difference because a PR system would prevent a party, blue or red, from gaining an unassailable Parliamentary majority ( 100+ ) with potentially less than 40% of the vote. It's that disproportionate safety in numbers that leads PMs like Thatcher and Blair to think they are invincible.

[Sour Mash]

But there would be a difference because a PR system would prevent a party, blue or red, from gaining an unassailable Parliamentary majority ( 100+ ) with potentially less than 40% of the vote. It's that disproportionate safety in numbers that leads PMs like Thatcher and Blair to think they are invincible.

That might save us from some of the more extreme policies and decisions of such administrations, but overall you're still going to have the same type of people with the same type of views running the country.

[bridge too far]

That might save us from some of the more extreme policies and decisions of such administrations, but overall you're still going to have the same type of people with the same type of views running the country.

 

Perhaps more of us should offer ourselves up as candidates in the next General Election?

[Turkish]

Perhaps more of us should offer ourselves up as candidates in the next General Election?

 

Good shout. They should do it like X factor. You'd get the popular vote with all your hard luck stories from your massive circle of friends. Turn the tears on you might even win it.

[View From The Top]

Have the likes of the Socialist Workers Party or any similar groups seen a rise in membership/activity in the last 10 years or so in reaction to Labour not being left-wing enough for it's supporters? In a similar way to UKIP appealing to some that disapprove of the current Tories' stance on Europe etc for example?

 

I don't think so. For many that is too far to the left.

 

It's striking a balance for everyone. Parties need to be electable but there also needs to be a clear difference between them and whilst there are now some signs of divergence there is still some way to go.

 

That said, my biggest gripe (at the moment) is that there are far, far too many career Oxbridge MP clones who really haven't a clue about the real world and seem trapped in the Westminster bubble. This applies to MPs of all parties.

[bridge too far]

Good shout. They should do it like X factor. You'd get the popular vote with all your hard luck stories from your massive circle of friends. Turn the tears on you might even win it.

 

You're just not capable of intellectual and reasoned debate, are you. Shame.

[badgerx16]

That might save us from some of the more extreme policies and decisions of such administrations, but overall you're still going to have the same type of people with the same type of views running the country.

 

But if they cannot be so certain of their electoral base, ( far fewer 'safe' seats, etc ), they will have to pay attention to more of us in determining policy - particularly in the 2nd and subsequent years of an administration when they've run out of headline manifesto commitments.

[Sour Mash]

Perhaps more of us should offer ourselves up as candidates in the next General Election?

At least get involved as a party activist to influence selection of parliamentary candidates for example., rather than just moan from the sidelines.

[bridge too far]

At least get involved as a party activist to influence selection of parliamentary candidates for example., rather than just moan from the sidelines.

 

Exactly right - not often I agree with you

[Sour Mash]

I don't think so. For many that is too far to the left.

 

It's striking a balance for everyone. Parties need to be electable but there also needs to be a clear difference between them and whilst there are now some signs of divergence there is still some way to go.

 

That said, my biggest gripe (at the moment) is that there are far, far too many career Oxbridge MP clones who really haven't a clue about the real world and seem trapped in the Westminster bubble. This applies to MPs of all parties.

The "Socialist Worker" example was just off the top of my head, but I do find it surprising that there hasn't at least been some kind of reasonable sized left-wing movement to offer an alternative to Labour if so many feel strongly that they have moved away from their supposed original core message.

 

I agreee with your last point, re OXbridge clones, but what can be done about that?

[View From The Top]

At least get involved as a party activist to influence selection of parliamentary candidates for example., rather than just moan from the sidelines.

 

Not so easy with imposed candidates etc. 3 or 4 elections ago a certain David Cameron was the tory candidate in our seat. No links, probably couldn't find it on the map and imposed by London. Locals were not impressed.

 

There is a disconnect on this country between central government and the regions and I can't see it changing anytime soon.

[Sour Mash]

Not so easy with imposed candidates etc. 3 or 4 elections ago a certain David Cameron was the tory candidate in our seat. No links, probably couldn't find it on the map and imposed by London. Locals were not impressed.

 

There is a disconnect on this country between central government and the regions and I can't see it changing anytime soon.

Not saying that it is easy and without barriers, but does the Labour party not (in general) give local party members some say in their Parliamentary Candidates?

[View From The Top]

The "Socialist Worker" example was just off the top of my head, but I do find it surprising that there hasn't at least been some kind of reasonable sized left-wing movement to offer an alternative to Labour if so many feel strongly that they have moved away from their supposed original core message.

 

I agreee with your last point, re OXbridge clones, but what can be done about that?

 

Plenty have moved over to The Greens. Not for environmental reasons but for their more left wing economic vision. Myself included.

[View From The Top]

Not saying that it is easy and without barriers, but does the Labour party not (in general) give local party members some say in their Parliamentary Candidates?

 

Not always. All parties are imposing candidates. Not always of course, but it does appear to be happening more and more often.

[bridge too far]

The "Socialist Worker" example was just off the top of my head, but I do find it surprising that there hasn't at least been some kind of reasonable sized left-wing movement to offer an alternative to Labour if so many feel strongly that they have moved away from their supposed original core message.

 

I agreee with your last point, re OXbridge clones, but what can be done about that?

 

There is this:

 

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/09/why-left-unity-could-become-labours-ukip

[Sour Mash]

There is this:

 

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/09/why-left-unity-could-become-labours-ukip

That's my point, why hasn't there been a left-wing alternative, similar to what UKIP offers some dissatified Tory supporters? To at least act as a protest vote in local and European elections? But what have we seen in the 20+ years of "New" Labour?

[View From The Top]

That's my point, why hasn't there been a left-wing alternative, similar to what UKIP offers some dissatified Tory supporters? To at least act as a protest vote in local and European elections? But what have we seen in the 20+ years of "New" Labour?

 

If you read the comments section underneath you'll see that a number say the same as me, the Greens already offer a left wing alternative.

 

If I'm honest, I think the left is still reeling and has yet to work out how to move forward, or at least in an organised way.

Edited 1 November, 2013 by View From The Top

[Sour Mash]

If you read the comments section underneath you'll see that a number say the same as me, the Greens already offer a left wing alternative.

 

If I'm honest, I think the left is still reeling and has yet to work out how to move forward, or at least in an organised way.

So is there a left-wing alternative or not? I thought earlier in the thread the position was that there wasn't any political party offering a viable alternative to LabourConservatives?

[View From The Top]

So is there a left-wing alternative or not? I thought earlier in the thread the position was that there wasn't any political party offering a viable alternative to LabourConservatives?

 

I suppose, to me, there is not a viable left wing alternative to the status quo. By viable I mean having a major influence on government. The Greens, whilst becoming more mainstream, are merely a refuge for me.

 

Can't speak for others though.

Edited 1 November, 2013 by View From The Top

[Barry Sanchez]

For the left go look at TUSC. For the right look at UKIP andEnglish National Party.

[Turkish]

You're just not capable of intellectual and reasoned debate, are you. Shame.

 

Maybe i should go on about how great i am, my huge circle of friends, my amazing family and what an all round great guy i am whilst at the same time being patronising to everyone else, yes?

[Barry Sanchez]

Maybe i should go on about how great i am, my huge circle of friends, my amazing family and what an all round great guy i am whilst at the same time being patronising to everyone else, yes?

 

You talking to me?