End of the Labour Party

[ClaphamGT3]

Derek Smith said:

I will give a brief overview but it will, obviously, be only that.

During the late 19thC the lower house wanted to extend the franchise. There was a majority in the house for women to have the same voting rights as men. The lords thought this would be a bad thing for them and kept refusing the legislation. Then the king was brought into it and there was a major constitutional stand-off, the biggest in 'recent' years. In the end the lords had to concede to an extent and it led to virtual universal sufferage for those males 21 and over and the same for women apart from 30 and over. The difference was not some mysoginistic reaction by MPs but a concession to the lords. This in 1918, delayed many say because of the war. Ten years later women were allowed the vote. Evidence suggest that the violent women's suffrage movement actually put the equalisation off.

Oddly enough, or perhaps not, women tended to vote more to the right than men so the lords upset them by their reluctance to accept the popular desire for equality and allowed the vote to more left leangin men. The impetous this gave the labour movement was substantial (more or less, depending on whom you read).

The political history of this country, from the (vastly overrated) 1832 first reform act to 1928 is a fascinating period. The lords went from being dominant to a footnote in less than a century, and many feel it was down to their own efforts.

The only real argument is whether you can date this country being a democracy from 1918 or 1928. It was not even close in 1832.

The Parliament Act of 1911, prior to which George V agreed to create as many peers as necessary to enact the legislation is normally accepted by Historians as the start-date for our modern democracy, being as the act set out the legislative framework for universal sufferage.

[HHHHHHH]

Who is going to represent the lower orders if there's no Labour party?

[martin84]

HHHHHHH said:

Who is going to represent the lower orders if there's no Labour party?

Not to mention Scotland and Wales.

[Don]

thinfourth2 said:

Labour will always be around as if you don't vote labour then maggie will get in and shut down the coalmines

[Eric Mc]

Johnnytheboy said:

AJS- said:

Their raisin d'être of advocating the newly urbanized working class in the late 19th century has more resonance in Shanghai than Sheffield, while their economic policy of employing everyone in public sector non jobs and borrowing to fund it is damaging both to the economy and to democracy.

This thread has a whiff of sour grapes.

Nice to see someone well versed in currant afairs.

[Derek Smith]

ClaphamGT3 said:

The Parliament Act of 1911, prior to which George V agreed to create as many peers as necessary to enact the legislation is normally accepted by Historians as the start-date for our modern democracy, being as the act set out the legislative framework for universal sufferage.

I disagree with the date though. Before 1918 all that had happened was that a democracy was promised. Like guarantees, I date it from the day of delivery. Mind you, I think there's a strong argument for 1928. The exclusion of a whole section of society for no particular reason (apart from political expediency) stops it being a real democracy.

[thinfourth2]

Don said:

thinfourth2 said:

Labour will always be around as if you don't vote labour then maggie will get in and shut down the coalmines

Its not funny

Thats basically why there is only 1 single tory MP in Scotland

[ClaphamGT3]

This is the mother of all dilemmas for the Tories. On the one hand, as the Conservative and Unionist Party, maintaining the Union is in the party's DNA. Cynically, however, no one can ignore the fact that if you cut Scotland lose and, with it, lose Scottish representation at Westminster, there'll be a Tory govt in what's left of the UK for the next 50 years.

[Derek Smith]

ClaphamGT3 said:

This is the mother of all dilemmas for the Tories. On the one hand, as the Conservative and Unionist Party, maintaining the Union is in the party's DNA. Cynically, however, no one can ignore the fact that if you cut Scotland lose and, with it, lose Scottish representation at Westminster, there'll be a Tory govt in what's left of the UK for the next 50 years.

Not picking on you, but I don't think that the 50 years is right.

If Scotland was cut adrift then the tories would move to the right and so would the labour party as the centre would have moved. The reason the conservatives are middle of the road is because that's where the votes are. The reason the labour party dumped the nationalisation clause was because they felt it politicaly expedient to do so. They needed centurist policies so something had to give. The old days of parties being, they suggested, motivated by principles are long gone - if they ever existed.

Cameron's main problem is keeping votes whilst stopping the right-wing backbenchers from pushing policies that would alienate the voters. One stupid Hunt is enough for any party.

The otyher thing is that the Scottish labour party, and most of the others, would probably move to the left as there would be no pressure from England/Wales.

[speedy_thrills]

ClaphamGT3 said:

The labour party hasn't aspired to represent the rights of the working class as a socialist party since 1992.

Good point, they weren't been good socialists either during the Blair/Brown governments. The price of staying in government for multiple term was compromise, a strategy others would do well to consider right now.

[cymtriks]

thinfourth2 said:

Labour will always be around as if you don't vote labour then maggie will get in and shut down the coalmines

and there's the other one that goes like this:

The tories made society selfish and greedy, if you vote for them you must be selfish and greedy, if you vote Labour society will be caring and sharing again!

I spoke to a Labour party new recruit just five hours ago.

What he had to say wasn't much different to the above.

I challenged him to name someone who had got more selfish and greedy during the eighties. Needless to say, he couldn't.

[davepoth]

If the numbers we're seeing at the moment are true:

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/

UKIP could be as big as the Lib Dems. Of course because of first past the post they could be twice the size, or end up with no seats at all, but that's half the fun.

There are many people in the country who vote Labour because that's what they always do, and while that happens there'll be a Labour party. What interests me is the union consolidation that's taking place. In a few years we'll be left with one mega-union which is going to want to have a big say in the running of Labour. I can see a split between Labour and the unions taking place at that point.

[Wombat3]

davepoth said:

If the numbers we're seeing at the moment are true:

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/

UKIP could be as big as the Lib Dems. Of course because of first past the post they could be twice the size, or end up with no seats at all, but that's half the fun.

There are many people in the country who vote Labour because that's what they always do, and while that happens there'll be a Labour party. What interests me is the union consolidation that's taking place. In a few years we'll be left with one mega-union which is going to want to have a big say in the running of Labour. I can see a split between Labour and the unions taking place at that point.

I can't see how unless Labour can ween itself off the Union cash. Without it they are bust in weeks.

I think the EU thing is an interesting one as well - UKIPers could very well make the difference in the next eection & frankly a vote for UKIP is a tantamount to a vote for labour in the effect it will have.

OTOH , if the Tories were to stand on an (in /out) EU referendum ticket in 2015 then (whether its a sensible thing to do or not) it will carry a lot of support and pull a lot of support in from UKIP as well.

WHatever his publicly decalred views on Europe are, my hunch is that DC is "managing" the European situation & his disagreements with Europe into exactly the position they need to be in for him to be able to "have no choice but to call a referendum". He knows its a vote winner.

[AJS-]

Derek Smith said:

ClaphamGT3 said:

This is the mother of all dilemmas for the Tories. On the one hand, as the Conservative and Unionist Party, maintaining the Union is in the party's DNA. Cynically, however, no one can ignore the fact that if you cut Scotland lose and, with it, lose Scottish representation at Westminster, there'll be a Tory govt in what's left of the UK for the next 50 years.

Not picking on you, but I don't think that the 50 years is right.

If Scotland was cut adrift then the tories would move to the right and so would the labour party as the centre would have moved. The reason the conservatives are middle of the road is because that's where the votes are. The reason the labour party dumped the nationalisation clause was because they felt it politicaly expedient to do so. They needed centurist policies so something had to give. The old days of parties being, they suggested, motivated by principles are long gone - if they ever existed.

Cameron's main problem is keeping votes whilst stopping the right-wing backbenchers from pushing policies that would alienate the voters. One stupid Hunt is enough for any party.

The otyher thing is that the Scottish labour party, and most of the others, would probably move to the left as there would be no pressure from England/Wales.

Doesn't this make the Tories current policy fundamentally illogical? They're chasing the centre so as not to alienate Scotland, but they only have one seat there anyway. How many seats in England could they win by moving to the right and motivating their core voters, even if it was at the expense of this one seat in Scotland?

Secondly, would it be at the expense of that one seat? Scottish conservatives I have met are not necessarily to the left of their English counterparts (thinforth?). They're just fewer in number and more geographically dispersed than conservatives south of the border.

[thinfourth2]

ClaphamGT3 said:

This is the mother of all dilemmas for the Tories. On the one hand, as the Conservative and Unionist Party, maintaining the Union is in the party's DNA. Cynically, however, no one can ignore the fact that if you cut Scotland lose and, with it, lose Scottish representation at Westminster, there'll be a Tory govt in what's left of the UK for the next 50 years.

Yes in the 2010 election if you removed scotland from the results you would have a tory government

However

in 1997 and 2002 elections every single person in Scotland could of voted tory and labour would of still had a majority

[speedy_thrills]

That said I'm not sure that would have been the actual outcome had Scotland decided it wanted out. A drastic swing towards a Conservative government wouldn't have lasted, look how quickly public opinion has soured towards this one. It doesn't matter how you shave electorates in the long term, the wrong policy decisions will always come back to haunt you.

[Pints]

Somewhat O/T but I think some sort of 3 question, multiple choice test should replace what we have as the "vote for a party" system we currently use.

Something like this.

Select 2 of the following choices to register your vote:
- more bureaucrats should be employed
- benefit payments should be reduced for the unemployed
- laws imposed by Brussels are a good thing
- private transport is preferable to public transport
Etc.

You get the idea. The questions could address specific policies each party has and you'd need at least a rudimentary understanding of where your preferred party actually stands to force a particular party way.
A different choice could Choi mean the difference between UKIP and Tory, or Labour and Lib Dem.

[JMGS4]

z4chris99 said:

labour will always be around to represent the working class etc etc etc...

Labour have never represented the working class!! They have only represented poor socialist views with the aim of ensuring their own (Labour party's) interests and financial prosperity. They have never supported the actual working man!

The time will come when even the herd of dumbnuts who vote(d) labour will open their eyes......

[Guybrush]

HHHHHHH said:

Who is going to represent the lower orders if there's no Labour party?

Labour's role is a crafty one. It pretends to represent the lower / working classes, but by trickery, divide and rule and ultimately bankrupting the country, it is these very people who suffer the most. Then when the Conservatives come to the rescue to fix the economy, the same useful idiot voters cry out for their 'protector'.

[Derek Smith]

JMGS4 said:

Labour have never represented the working class!! They have only represented poor socialist views with the aim of ensuring their own (Labour party's) interests and financial prosperity. They have never supported the actual working man!

The time will come when even the herd of dumbnuts who vote(d) labour will open their eyes......

I would suggest the early history of the party shows that is a little bit off the mark. It was very much working class up until the war I'd say, and beyond that for a time. What changed was the years of plenty in the 60s. Much of the imperative went away and labour was saddled with professional politicians, like Gaitskill. The tories will have to take care. Labour is the only viable alternative.

I've always thought that the dumbnuts are those who vote for a particular party regardless. I voted for Blair for his first term because the tories were a total and utter shambles at the time. I just opened my eyes and saw. Many people like me voted for Thatcher because labour was unelectable.

The problem seems to me that all parties, of whatever colour or persuasion, are dominated by professional politicians and ensure their own self-centred financial and other interests regardless of what they promise the electorate.