Labour self-destruction
Discussion
Expect to see a new New Labour. The current party is quickly becoming so tainted that it's becoming synonymous with incompetency. It is also funded almost entirely by the unions, meaning the incompetents are being kept in position.
A new party could attract middle ground politicians who don't align themselves with the Tories. If the people were credible they'd attract significant private funding and avoid the union interference that taints Labour decision making. 'Old' Labour would go the way of the Liberals. The country would once again have two credible choices of party to vote for.
A new party could attract middle ground politicians who don't align themselves with the Tories. If the people were credible they'd attract significant private funding and avoid the union interference that taints Labour decision making. 'Old' Labour would go the way of the Liberals. The country would once again have two credible choices of party to vote for.
janesmith1950 said:
Expect to see a new New Labour. The current party is quickly becoming so tainted that it's becoming synonymous with incompetency. It is also funded almost entirely by the unions, meaning the incompetents are being kept in position.
A new party could attract middle ground politicians who don't align themselves with the Tories. If the people were credible they'd attract significant private funding and avoid the union interference that taints Labour decision making. 'Old' Labour would go the way of the Liberals. The country would once again have two credible choices of party to vote for.
This kind of split has been done before though hasn't it? And it didn't end well. Also if there is a split who gets the Labour brand, the unions backing and all the money that comes with it?A new party could attract middle ground politicians who don't align themselves with the Tories. If the people were credible they'd attract significant private funding and avoid the union interference that taints Labour decision making. 'Old' Labour would go the way of the Liberals. The country would once again have two credible choices of party to vote for.
A few years ago you might have said it would be possible for these pissed off MPs to perhaps join the Lib Dems as they were fairly central and had a good base.... but they are most likely to be wiped out at the next election as well.
VolvoT5 said:
This kind of split has been done before though hasn't it? And it didn't end well. Also if there is a split who gets the Labour brand, the unions backing and all the money that comes with it?
The break from the Labour brand and union money are the important points. Both are political nooses. Some kind of 'Social Democratic' party could position themselves quite nicely between the left wing lunatics and the in-it-for-themselves Tories.janesmith1950 said:
The break from the Labour brand and union money are the important points. Both are political nooses. Some kind of 'Social Democratic' party could position themselves quite nicely between the left wing lunatics and the in-it-for-themselves Tories.
Well that political strategy hasn't worked well for the Liberal Democrats has it? And without the union money how do you fund a party like that to the level required to be a serious national threat.
VolvoT5 said:
And without the union money how do you fund a party like that to the level required to be a serious national threat.
This is the key problem. If you have a Labour split into JC-Labour and Blair-Labour, and perhaps create a new centre party with Blair-Labour, the Lib Dem rump, and a few of the wettest Tories - where is the money coming from to run it ? Tories' backers stay with them, Unions mostly stay with JC-Labour. It's actually worrying that there seems to be nobody capable of structuring a coherent centre-left opposition that can win parliamentary seats. It's vital that there is someone to press government and hold them to account, otherwise you slide into a one party state with all sorts of hidden deals and good ol' boys shenanigans, Right or Left.
VolvoT5 said:
Well that political strategy hasn't worked well for the Liberal Democrats has it?
And without the union money how do you fund a party like that to the level required to be a serious national threat.
That was when Labour was one of the big two. If you take the moderates out of current Labour, you're left with left-wingers and a party on the fringes, on the opposite side to UKIP.And without the union money how do you fund a party like that to the level required to be a serious national threat.
The Liberals failed because they sold their souls to form the ineffective half of a coalition and the people who voted for them felt betrayed.
There are millions of middle-ground voters who see Labour as too damaged, the Tories too self-focused and Liberals no longer relevant. Therefore there are vast swathes of people who're not represented by any mainstream political entity.
Politically there is a middle-ground vacuum that the present Labour party is unable and unlikely to fill any time soon, leaving an opportunity for a new party to form and gain traction. Labourites and perhaps some Liberals could form a credible reverse out of Labour and present themselves as the future of a fair and balanced Britain, and at the least a reasonable alternative the the Tories.
As for funding, it's as damaging to have funding from trade unions as it is having too little funding from anyone. A party entirely reliant on unions is not independent and unlikely to represent the views of the middle ground (naturally sitting on the left of most views). Other parties have managed to run on private and self-funding. If the credibility is sufficient there is funding out there for people looking for it. Even UKIP, as a fringe party, manage significant financial backing.
An argument that effectively boils down to, "it's always been a two party country and it will always be Labour & Conservatives because different scenarios have seen others fail", is misconceived, as it presumes circumstances and landscapes cannot change significantly, which we have seen they can.
janesmith1950 said:
.........
An argument that effectively boils down to, "it's always been a two party country and it will always be Labour & Conservatives because different scenarios have seen others fail", is misconceived, as it presumes circumstances and landscapes cannot change significantly, which we have seen they can.
The Liberals had existed for years as a centrist party before the coalition and before Blair but still didn't succeed in any major way beyond a protest vote. What has happened is UKIP has now taken over that role. I would be willing to bet that many Ukippers don't have a clue that most of their other policies are very right wing - they don't care, they just want someone anti-establishment to vote for. An argument that effectively boils down to, "it's always been a two party country and it will always be Labour & Conservatives because different scenarios have seen others fail", is misconceived, as it presumes circumstances and landscapes cannot change significantly, which we have seen they can.
You are arguing against union funding as it means the party isn't independent, but private funding basically means huge bungs from big business or rich individuals and having to implement their policies instead. We already have the Tory party for that.
Labour is still one of the big two although mainly because of FPTP. In my opinion the main problem is the first past the post voting system as it guarantees a two party system, especially when the boundaries are fiddled with on a regular basis.
So I don't think the argument is misconceived, because while there may be a middle ground vacuum we won't get true multi-party democracy that represents the full spectrum of left / centre / right / other / until we change the voting system. And until that happens we are stuck with Labour & Conservative and the never ending internal power battles....... and at the moment the crazies in Labour are dragging them left and the nutters in the Conservatives are dragging them to the far right.
VolvoT5 said:
The Liberals had existed for years as a centrist party before the coalition and before Blair but still didn't succeed in any major way beyond a protest vote. What has happened is UKIP has now taken over that role. I would be willing to bet that many Ukippers don't have a clue that most of their other policies are very right wing - they don't care, they just want someone anti-establishment to vote for.
UKIP weren't / aren't particularly right wing, in the economic sense. They tend to veer towards authoritarian social policies but economically they're to the left of the Tories and somewhere between them and the Liberals... Truth is in the last election they said almost anything to get the working class vote. Who knows what the leadership actually believe, but that goes for all the parties...
The centre ground of UK politics is a toxic waste ground, I suspect if UKIP continue they'll morph into a UK version of the Tea Party, I suspect the Tories will lurch further right and that Labour will continue edging leftward, why? Because reactionary ideologue politics is easier to do than good centre ground politics which demands nuance, hypocrisy and tact - skills either ridiculed or torn down by the media and modern online discourse. Sadly the quality and integrity of the people who involve themselves in politics is on a slippery slope into the sewer and it will get increasingly bleak from here on in.
Lucas CAV said:
Esseesse said:
FredClogs said:
...
Sorry but the graph is total BS, forget it.Esseesse said:
Sorry but the graph is total BS, forget it.
^This. I tend to read the manifestos and draw my own conclusion of who is right or left, authoritarian or libertarian. Although obviously I'm judging this against my own values. Last time I read by UKIP it felt very much like Tory+ to me.... reducing taxes, capital expenditure, reducing the size of government, cutting immigration and giving preference to people with "local connections" (i.e. dog whistle which they want people to assume means white people), reducing welfare and so on.
VolvoT5 said:
Esseesse said:
Sorry but the graph is total BS, forget it.
^This. I tend to read the manifestos and draw my own conclusion of who is right or left, authoritarian or libertarian. Although obviously I'm judging this against my own values. Last time I read by UKIP it felt very much like Tory+ to me.... reducing taxes, capital expenditure, reducing the size of government, cutting immigration and giving preference to people with "local connections" (i.e. dog whistle which they want people to assume means white people), reducing welfare and so on.
In essence like any politicians they'll say what's needed to differentiate themselves and get votes but i don't think economically they're anywhere near a Thatcherite as some people represent, up to now and they certainly from an authoritarian stance aren't libertarian.
A pal of mine follows Comrade C on facebook. This is his latest post:
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=101543...
I must say that, while I don't think he will ever win an oration award, he seems to come across quite well if you read the comments. Theres a point where he talks about people being disenfranchised and powerless at which the Tories all laugh (obviously at the similarity to JC's own position), but which viewers assume are a bunch of millionaire Tory's laughing at the poor and powerless.
I'd bet money on JC winning a general election if some decent PR guy/Labour donor cracked some heads and surrounded him with a good team.
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=101543...
I must say that, while I don't think he will ever win an oration award, he seems to come across quite well if you read the comments. Theres a point where he talks about people being disenfranchised and powerless at which the Tories all laugh (obviously at the similarity to JC's own position), but which viewers assume are a bunch of millionaire Tory's laughing at the poor and powerless.
I'd bet money on JC winning a general election if some decent PR guy/Labour donor cracked some heads and surrounded him with a good team.
Sky interviewed the newly appointed Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury earlier this afternoon. It was pretty funny to watch, she staunchly defended Corbyn (obviously an allay as she had just been promoted). Dermot Murnaghan said, I apologise, but I don't know you, so can you tell me your back ground/experience and your suitability for the role . She replied she used to be a lawyer and the Government/Opposition obviously needed a lot more lawyers now. He then suggested, that's fine, but what about your finance experience to which she responded that she read the Financial Times. When pushed further as to how that manifested to a suitability for the role, she said she read it thoroughly :-)
towser44 said:
Sky interviewed the newly appointed Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury earlier this afternoon. It was pretty funny to watch, she staunchly defended Corbyn (obviously an allay as she had just been promoted). Dermot Murnaghan said, I apologise, but I don't know you, so can you tell me your back ground/experience and your suitability for the role . She replied she used to be a lawyer and the Government/Opposition obviously needed a lot more lawyers now. He then suggested, that's fine, but what about your finance experience to which she responded that she read the Financial Times. When pushed further as to how that manifested to a suitability for the role, she said she read it thoroughly :-)
Osborne has a degree in Modern History and worked as a freelance journalist before becomming a researcher for the Conservatives. If she's an ex lawyer she's overqualified!Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff