End of the Labour Party
Discussion
Despite their current popularity as a party that can give 50% of the electorate a pay rise, they seem like a party whose time has passed. 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.
Full on communism as some members of the Labour Party have supported over the years is as defunct as fascism or absolute monarchy as a viable system of governance.
The Tories and Lib Dems between them represent a reasonable coverage of the political spectrum that can be satisfactorily resolved at the ballot box, while minor and local parties can step in where something is missing from this.
Can you see a future without a Labour Party, and would this be a good thing in your view?
Full on communism as some members of the Labour Party have supported over the years is as defunct as fascism or absolute monarchy as a viable system of governance.
The Tories and Lib Dems between them represent a reasonable coverage of the political spectrum that can be satisfactorily resolved at the ballot box, while minor and local parties can step in where something is missing from this.
Can you see a future without a Labour Party, and would this be a good thing in your view?
Its an interesting one. The old days of a socialist labour party and a radical right-wing conservative party (such as they ever existed in more than people's imagination) are over. Politics now is all about 'the rush to the middle' and who can define themselves as a centrist social democratic party that reflects the aspirations of the many for a general upward trend in living standards, supported out of an equitable-to-high tax-take from a sustainably growing economy.
Major offered this in the mid-late 90s and the very early stages of the Blair government aspired to, before they got carried away with their own hubris with "The New Labour Project"
Major offered this in the mid-late 90s and the very early stages of the Blair government aspired to, before they got carried away with their own hubris with "The New Labour Project"
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.
Labour's policy of employing lots of people in the public sector is electoral gold for them. We'll never be rid of them as they are making their own voters.
z4chris99 said:
labour will always be around to represent the working class etc etc etc...
you won't get rid of them anytime soon
maybe you could start a poll about it?
The labour party hasn't aspired to represent the rights of the working class as a socialist party since 1992. It is a left of centre social democratic party based on principles of 'big' government, state intervention and creation of culture of citizen acquienscence in an all pervading 'state' in return for a uniformly adequate standard of living.you won't get rid of them anytime soon
maybe you could start a poll about it?
The party of low aspiration
The party of low self esteem
The party of low self-determination
ClaphamGT3 said:
Its an interesting one. The old days of a socialist labour party and a radical right-wing conservative party (such as they ever existed in more than people's imagination) are over. Politics now is all about 'the rush to the middle' and who can define themselves as a centrist social democratic party that reflects the aspirations of the many for a general upward trend in living standards, supported out of an equitable-to-high tax-take from a sustainably growing economy.
Major offered this in the mid-late 90s and the very early stages of the Blair government aspired to, before they got carried away with their own hubris with "The New Labour Project"
The situation has changed considerably since 1918 then 1928 when we became a democracy. Up until the early years of the 20thC the Lords were the more powerful chamber but they blew it big time. Since then it has been a struggle for votes. Major offered this in the mid-late 90s and the very early stages of the Blair government aspired to, before they got carried away with their own hubris with "The New Labour Project"
The electorate has, over the years, voted for the incumbent unless they are doing something badly. Major was well liked but the party was a mass of in-fighting and the electorate went off for someone else. Say what you like about Blair, but he at least kept the party away from extremists - including all the socialists of course. Had Mjor got back in then I feel it would have been a disaster.
Basically, the next election will depend on how well the tories are doing with the economy. If they've got it in hand, they'll be re-elected. If they've blown it, then they won't. There are other things which will have a bearing. Sleeze upsets the electorate.
Cameron has upset the femaile voters, they being the single most affected group by the current policies, but now seems to be aiming for the middle ground, which is good for electioneering, but it will upset those who have authority in his party. There is backbench pressure, as always in the tory party, to move to the right.
Up against him we have what must be the most ineffectual looking leader of the labour party for some years. You'd think it would be a walkover but it is not. Milliband has Harman, an anchor if ever there was one, making the labour party unelectable, but then the tory party has Hunt. Gaff prone, he seems to have no control over his mouth nor his expenses.
The labour party, as the political party for the labour movement, has gone. I can't think of one of their policies which could be described as socialist. Whilst I can't see it returning to its old ways, nothing is impossible. If the tories lurch to the right then there will be pressure for the labour party to go left. But I think the middle ground labour party is here to stay for the forseeable.
Regardless of badging, the current labour party is not that of the Kinnock era.
The risks to the tories are:
The economy. They blamed the labour party for the state we're in now so it would be a bit late to mention world financial problems.
Stuff like the NHS. I've just spent three days tooing and frowing to A&E and then a ward. It took hours to find a bed for the person and we are still hearing that more wards will close. This will be grist to the mill of the labour spin doctors.
Moving away from the middle groud.
Two out of three and we will see a resurgent labour party whoever is in charge even if Harman is deputy. So the end is hardly here, near, in sight or likely.
Asterix said:
Excuse my ignorance - how did they blow it?
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.
Derek Smith said:
Asterix said:
Excuse my ignorance - how did they blow it?
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.
Countdown said:
Labour exists as a counterweight to the Tories (and vice versa).
Why couldn't the Lib Dems (or someone else?) Provide that counterbalance better than a party whose basic reason for being is no longer relevant? I'd go a bit further - Conservatism and Liberalism are political outlooks that can be applied to any political debate. Labour doesn't have an outlook, they have a knee jerk post socialist impulse to spend money.
Socialism, like fascism or imperialism are ideas that have died. The USSR was a counterbalance to the US but ceased to be for the very same reason.
Labour was perhaps a useful pressure group in the days when industry treated workers as an expendable commodity, just as the USSR was seen as a useful step away from the absolute rule of the Tsars, but became a nightmarish burden when it was impeding the development of democracy.
There will always be a section of the populace that feel hard done by because others live a comfortable lifestyle - the fact that those well off have in the majority worked for it doesn't seem to register with the 'gimme' lot. Because of that we will always have a party whose politics are largely based on jealousy, and that's the Labour party. The Libs are close but they seem to be more of a party of Nimbys.
Personally, I'm worried that the new "One Nation Labour Party" will be around forever, or at least until they get back into power and mess it up again. Labour seem to be moving more to the right, where they will keep their existing voters, and gain more of the floating "centre" voters. The Tories, on the other hand, are already losing voters to UKIP. If they go any further to the left in an attempt to squeeze the Lib-Dems, they will lose more of their right-wing voters.
What we need, to keep the balance, is a non-workers Benefit Scroungers party, or a true Socialist party for those that have jobs, but can't be bothered to better themselves by putting in any kind of effort.
At the end of the day, does it really matter who is in power, since the policies are virtually identical, being aimed at the 10% "in the middle"?
What we need, to keep the balance, is a non-workers Benefit Scroungers party, or a true Socialist party for those that have jobs, but can't be bothered to better themselves by putting in any kind of effort.
At the end of the day, does it really matter who is in power, since the policies are virtually identical, being aimed at the 10% "in the middle"?
You could go further and ask why we need both the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats. Considering there's been more than one instance of a Lib-Lab pact and the Lib Dems are happy to join Labour in Coalition you have to wonder what's the point in both of them existing? Why not just combine into one party?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff