|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Left Wing Politics in the UK
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
As the UK digs deeper into austerity there is a significant dearth of opposition to the status quo. There is a parliamentary consensus across the parties on austerity measures, which basically consist of the rescue of the economy through propping up big business by tightening the belts of the poor. The general neo-thatcherite politics of the government is largely shared by the opposition. Many have argued that, just like UKIP is a pull to the right of the Tories, we need the balance of a significant and vocal voice to the left of labour. Yet the far-left has been in scattered retreat for decades.
I’ve often liked the idea of the left, with its focus on democratisation, equality, and welfare. But the reality of the left has always put me off, through its tribalism, partisanship, utopianism, and politics of negativity, declaring strongly what they’re against but never being as vocal about providing solid alternative solutions apart from protest and dissent. The narrow tribal lobbying of the trade unions annoy me, striking and making everyone else suffer so they can lobby for their own interests.
I’m also put off by the antipathy towards capitalism shown by some of the left, a lack of compromise or sense of reality. Socialism in my view needs to be built on the scaffold of capitalism, not on its ashes. And other left groups still talk in the outmoded and divisive words of class struggle. A failed ideology that seeks not equalisation and fairness in society, but as Lenin put it, a ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’. What interests me more is the post-war social welfare building of Beveridge and Bevan, but this seems to have vanished from current politics.
So I was interested to hear that Ken Loach and others have come together to build a broad coalition of the left called ‘Left Unity’. Its politics are sketchy, based on the idea that something to the left of labour needs to exist, rather than anything more definitive than that. They are planning a founding Conference on November 30th which will probably define a few more things. But I was wondering what people thought about this as a concept? Is this finally a return to a workable left opposition in the UK, or will it be just more of the same - never coming close to any real influence on the political landscape?
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hairy Biker
Shipmate
# 12086
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Socialism in my view needs to be built on the scaffold of capitalism, not on its ashes.
Isn't that what Tony Blair's "new Labour" was all about?
(aside - interesting connotations of the word "scaffold".)
--------------------
there [are] four important things in life: religion, love, art and science. At their best, they’re all just tools to help you find a path through the darkness. None of them really work that well, but they help.
Damien Hirst
Posts: 683 | From: This Sceptred Isle | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Its politics are sketchy, based on the idea that something to the left of labour needs to exist, rather than anything more definitive than that.
Seems pretty much like a reboot of the British Communist Party to me.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Its politics are sketchy, based on the idea that something to the left of labour needs to exist, rather than anything more definitive than that.
Seems pretty much like a reboot of the British Communist Party to me.
Hardly. There's a wide sea of clear red water between the current Labour Party and communism; a wider sea perhaps than there's ever been.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
S. Bacchus
Shipmate
# 17778
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
I’ve often liked the idea of the left, with its focus on democratisation, equality, and welfare. But the reality of the left has always put me off, through its tribalism, partisanship, utopianism, and politics of negativity, declaring strongly what they’re against but never being as vocal about providing solid alternative solutions apart from protest and dissent. The narrow tribal lobbying of the trade unions annoy me, striking and making everyone else suffer so they can lobby for their own interests.
Preach it! This reflects my experience as well. For what it's worth, every intelligent (and honest) person I've known to be involved in left-wing movements has expressed frustration at many if not all of these elements. Orwell certainly did. One friend of mine when I was an undergraduate suggested the motto of the the left wing student group (which was broadly considerably to the left of the Labour Party, and managed to have both links to and and a fierce antipathy for the Socialist Workers Party) should be 'semper schismatica'.
--------------------
'It's not that simple. I won't have it to be that simple'.
Posts: 260 | Registered: Jul 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yes, I noticed that Ken Loach and others were working on this.
I really don't know if it will get anywhere. The British public has always seemed rather allergic to left-wing organizations; on the other hand, the Labour Party now resembles a centre-right party. So we seem to have three of them currently! So there is probably a vacuum on the left.
There seems to be a shift leftwards (and of course, rightwards as well) in some countries, such as Greece and Italy. But the British tend not to like this; I suppose historically they have preferred social democracy. Problem is, this has been Thatcherized in the UK, so the political landscape on the left is a wilderness.
I just remembered being impressed by Ken Loach and also Corin Redgrave, when I used to go to political meetings (but not Vanessa). But they will come up against the usual hurdles in the UK - do you stand for Parliament, for example.
[ 11. September 2013, 11:52: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
There's a wide sea of clear red water between the current Labour Party and communism; a wider sea perhaps than there's ever been.
Yes, and it's that sea that Left Unity (the new Party Hawk was talking about) seems to be trying to cross.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
pererin
Shipmate
# 16956
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
As the UK digs deeper into austerity
Which is why public spending has gone up...
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
The general neo-thatcherite politics of the government is largely shared by the opposition.
This isn't Thatcherism; it's incompetent social democracy. The heir to Blair is sitting in Downing Street, with his hands tied by the hapless Beard and Sandals Party, most of whom got elected by screaming at students about "illegal" wars.
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
just like UKIP is a pull to the right of the Tories,
It isn't. They pick up votes from Labour too. In fact, they do significantly better in urban areas in the North of England than the Conservative Party ever could. That's why Labour are trying their damnedest to smear them as "right-wing".
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
I’ve often liked the idea of the left, with its focus on democratisation, equality, and welfare.
Shame about personal freedom...
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
But the reality of the left has always put me off, through its tribalism, partisanship, utopianism, and politics of negativity, declaring strongly what they’re against but never being as vocal about providing solid alternative solutions apart from protest and dissent. The narrow tribal lobbying of the trade unions annoy me, striking and making everyone else suffer so they can lobby for their own interests.
You'll be a Tory yet.
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
I’m also put off by the antipathy towards capitalism shown by some of the left, a lack of compromise or sense of reality.
Hold on, you were just calling for a voice to the left of Labour? What did you expect? Of course the reality-based community is talking about austerity, because we had 13 years of Gordon Brown and his pals pissing money we didn't have up the wall. It doesn't mean that either side has the competence to deliver on this though.
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
And other left groups still talk in the outmoded and divisive words of class struggle.
It's their favourite game of divide and rule. You can ask Diane Abbott about that one... ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
What interests me more is the post-war social welfare building of Beveridge and Bevan, but this seems to have vanished from current politics.
With whose money?
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
So I was interested to hear that Ken Loach and others have come together to build a broad coalition of the left called ‘Left Unity’.
Hurrah! Another minuscule left-wing splinter group! (But seriously, the very name conjures up this image.)
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Its politics are sketchy,
Or, in less polite terms, ill thought-out.
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
But I was wondering what people thought about this as a concept?
To be totally frank, it's moronic.
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Is this finally a return to a workable left opposition in the UK, or will it be just more of the same - never coming close to any real influence on the political landscape?
By definition the opposition never come close to any real influence on the political landscape.
And this sort of politics is a good way of ensuring that you remain in opposition. Whenever anything left-of-Labour gains any definition beyond "Oh, aren't those Tory scum mean?", it immediately conjures up pictures of the era that the left look back to rosily, and everyone else looks back to with horror. Just look at those geniuses from Unite, who took time off from their Falkirking activities to mob Boris Johnson at that new container port on the Thames Estuary. To the left, this looks like a return to a workable left opposition; to everyone else, they would far rather simply return to work, and they see a bunch of complete loonies standing in their way. Appealing to the era this is so reminiscent of as some sort of golden age is not even going to result in your being despised. No, the reaction will be laughter, and then pity.
--------------------
"They go to and fro in the evening, they grin like a dog, and run about through the city." (Psalm 59.6)
Posts: 446 | From: Llantrisant | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
But communism was completely corrupted and hollowed out by its obeisance to the Soviet Union. This came to a crisis in 1956, when many intellectuals left the party over the Hungarian invasion. Subsequently, communists became notorious on the left for their craven and unprincipled positions.
But is was visible before the war - see Orwell, for example, in 'Homage to Catalonia', where he cites communists being more interested in bumping off other members of the left than the fascists.
This included members of POUM, of which Orwell was a member (I think).
In fact, I think communism (of the Soviet variety) had a terrible effect on left politics, as for many decades, being left-wing seemed to be linked with such opportunism and thuggery.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
There are few things that cause evil to flourish as much as a weak opposition.
We certainly seem to be seeing that at the present, with nothing in mainstream UK politics standing up to the Tory-led government. The key word there is 'mainstream'. The barriers to entry into politics are incredibly high. Even given the wide-spread and growing support for UKIP, they look unlikely to win any seats at the next general election; yet they've been around for ages.
So there seems little hope for a left-wing equivalent of UKIP (please don't take that the wrong way!) to make any inroads into the political scene.
Ultimately, we stick with one of the devils we know, rather than the devils we don't, even though we only know them by the colour of their ribbons.
--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile
Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
TheAlethiophile
Yes, agree with that. We have 3 centre-right parties now, not good for politics.
And yes, it's easy to be a fringe party, but very difficult to go beyond that.
[ 11. September 2013, 12:19: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
As the UK digs deeper into austerity there is a significant dearth of opposition to the status quo. There is a parliamentary consensus across the parties on austerity measures, ....
You don't think the rest of us not believing the left has any credible alternative medicine to offer might have anything to do with it?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
TheAlethiophile
Yes, agree with that. We have 3 centre-right parties now, not good for politics.
At heart I agree, a homogeny between political parties is no good (strikes of Communism - vote for any candidate as long as they are the party candidate) but it is a situation which has been brought about by the electorate in the UK.
Whilst some of the lefty-lefts bemoan the loss of a 'real left party' they are of a minority of the electorate, who in the majority have moved the centre ground (certainly in terms of economic policy) to the right of the political spectrum, and as a result the principle parties move roughly (certainly in practice) to that point despite whatever class-warfare rhetoric they spout out (currently watching Commons debate which has been laden with class-warfare laden comments from a particular opposition party.)
The shift has happened in the past and will happen again in the future, and the political parties will broadly move along with it and implement economically centre-right/centre-left policies depending on where the electorate's heart has wandered, with some of the social issues bearing a more rigid/traditional left-right divide between the parties.
But of course the most important thing to note is that we can no longer use the definitions of left and right that were used during the 2000's (or any definitions used in earlier decades - probably back to the '70s from what is implicit in some people's comments) since the political spectrum has moved and therefore left wing now means something different to what it previously did, as does right-wing.
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
TheAlethiophile
Yes, agree with that. We have 3 centre-right parties now, not good for politics.
And yes, it's easy to be a fringe party, but very difficult to go beyond that.
Three liberal parties from my perspective (I don't know what exactly that means in terms of the right-centre-left spectrum).
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
... But the reality of the left has always put me off, through its tribalism, partisanship, utopianism, and politics of negativity, declaring strongly what they’re against but never being as vocal about providing solid alternative solutions apart from protest and dissent. The narrow tribal lobbying of the trade unions annoy me, striking and making everyone else suffer so they can lobby for their own interests....
And the reality of the right has always put me off, through its tribalism, partisanship, complacency, and politics of arrogance, declaring loudly what they’re in favour of and patronisingly dismissing even the most solid alternative solutions as impractical pipedreams. The narrow tribal lobbying of big business and finance annoys me, looking only to their own wallets and making everyone else suffer so they can lobby for their own interests.
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Three liberal parties from my perspective (I don't know what exactly that means in terms of the right-centre-left spectrum).
Yes, it's not as simple as a right-centre-left spectrum, is it? Have you all seen the Political Compass site? There's a test which aims to show where you are on two spectrums, a left-right economic spectrum and a libertarian-authoritarian social spectrum. A really good analysis, IMO.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
As the UK digs deeper into austerity there is a significant dearth of opposition to the status quo. There is a parliamentary consensus across the parties on austerity measures, ....
You don't think the rest of us not believing the left has any credible alternative medicine to offer might have anything to do with it?
Exactly, it's because they don't. Its why the anti-austerity protests failed so dismally and frustratingly. They got lots of people onto the street waving placards, but achieved bugger all because all they had to say was 'No to Austerity', they weren't voicing any alternative solution. That doesn't mean an alternative is impossible, just unvoiced. One alternative would be for us to spend our way out of recession in classic Keynesian fashion. There are probably other counter-ideas as well. I don't know, I'm not an economist, or a socialist. But I see the absence of debate over the economy and I'm amazed. Where are the people with real ideas and plans?
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Have you all seen the Political Compass site? There's a test which aims to show where you are on two spectrums, a left-right economic spectrum and a libertarian-authoritarian social spectrum.
Yes. I come out just to the left of Gandhi. He's not a bad bloke to have as your right-hand man. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile
Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cedd007
Shipmate
# 16180
|
Posted
Our church-run food bank opened today in our patch of semi-rural Essex. I was disgusted by a government minister's recent comment in Parliament that the plight of people going to food banks was "often as a result of decisions taken by those families" (as my daughter has just opined “yeah, because they just don't want to starve to death”). Apart from the insensitivity of his remark, and the fact that MP's enjoy particularly pleasant dining arrangements themselves, it wilfully ignores the fact that our underlying economic problems were not caused by poor families making mistakes. The spin that the powers-that-be put on problems that have actually arisen out of decisions taken by the rich and powerful beggars belief.
Press and Television companies, and their editorial staffs, probably need to have a long hard look at the lengths they sometimes go to sell their products, and all the people concerned need to look a little harder at the mirror each morning. I recently started reading the book “Tombstone” by Yang Jisheng, about how the Chinese government managed, by its own policies, to starve 36 million people to death between 1958 and 1962. People were left unburied because, according to the official line, the government's policies were working and therefore what people were witnessing with their own eyes wasn't happening. At the moment the stakes in our own country are not so high, but as individuals we still have a moral duty to challenge what are essentially lies.
So although a Left-Wing party might be a good idea (or a new Left-Wing party if you prefer) I think the real problem is the lack of robust debate, and, to put it bluntly, a lack of willingness to share our collective wealth more collectively.
The Old Testament is quite clear that the poor are not to be exploited, and that families should not be allowed to enter a cycle of deprivation. They certainly shouldn't be stigmatised for being without work or without food or occupying too much of the country's housing stock.
I think we need to change the nature of the debate, and that the political parties will then discover that the economists have, after all, got a solution.
Posts: 58 | From: Essex, United Kingdom | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TheAlethiophile:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Have you all seen the Political Compass site? There's a test which aims to show where you are on two spectrums, a left-right economic spectrum and a libertarian-authoritarian social spectrum.
Yes. I come out just to the left of Gandhi. He's not a bad bloke to have as your right-hand man.
I came out almost dead centre!
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sandemaniac
Shipmate
# 12829
|
Posted
Perhaps if the left were a little less obsessed with the Tories they might gain a little more support? Merely an observation based on my own personal prejudices, but any call to whatever to, with, or against The Tories just makes me think "Have you no better policies?". Maybe I'm weird, or maybe it explains why I find politics so loathsome, but I might actually listen to a balanced and sensible argument...
AG
--------------------
"It becomes soon pleasantly apparent that change-ringing is by no means merely an excuse for beer" Charles Dickens gets it wrong, 1869
Posts: 3574 | From: The wardrobe of my soul | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Cedd: quote:
I think the real problem is the lack of robust debate, and, to put it bluntly, a lack of willingness to share our collective wealth more collectively.
...so you think we do need a new left-wing party, then? Because the lack of robust debate is due to the fact that all three mainstream parties are basically centre-right. And willingness to share wealth is what the traditional left is all about; fair wages, reliable healthcare, reasonable pensions.
I don't know how far the new left wing is likely to get, though. Most of the current fringe parties, with the possible exception of the Greens, are to the right of the mainstream; and as several other people have pointed out, the barriers to entry into Parliament are high. The people already on the gravy train have no interest in making it easier for others to climb aboard.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yet it's puzzling in some ways, as in many countries an economic crash, plus austerity measures, will give rise to plenty of left-wing (and right-wing) opposition.
I always think that the UK is a very conservative country, and this can be partly connected historically with the compromises reached after the restoration of the monarchy.
I mean, we had our revolution and civil war, as many countries do, but we made an early compromise between the monarchy, the aristocracy and the rising bourgeoisie. In other countries, the revolutions seem to have been later (e.g. 1789), and involved less compromise; thus in France, the aristocracy were more or less écrasé!
However, no doubt there are other factors. For example, it's a bit of a cliche to say that Wesley saved Britain from revolution! I'm not sure about that.
Also, the conventional Marxist analysis used to be that the Empire gave Britain plenty of fat reserves, with which it could sort of bribe the poor. Again, very difficult to assess this kind of analysis.
[ 11. September 2013, 14:42: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pererin:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
What interests me more is the post-war social welfare building of Beveridge and Bevan, but this seems to have vanished from current politics.
With whose money?
Whose money set up the NHS and other aspects of the Welfare State when the country was virtually bankrupt after the Second World War? It can be done.
There is money to launch destructive attacks on other countries, to replace Trident and even to build HS2. Much as I think the latter is a good idea (at least I did), I can see that it can be perceived as disproportionately benefiting rich businessmen and not worthy of government expenditure. Unlike preventing the poor from starving to death or dying prematurely from treatable diseases.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yes, there was a postwar consensus on a Welfare State, NHS, low unemployment, and so on.
But the right wing don't want this any more, they want a low-wage high-flexibility economy, and Labour sort of bleat and whine a bit and then say, well, OK, then.
And there is little opposition. Quite odd.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lord Jestocost
Shipmate
# 12909
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cedd007:
Our church-run food bank opened today in our patch of semi-rural Essex. I was disgusted by a government minister's recent comment in Parliament that the plight of people going to food banks was "often as a result of decisions taken by those families" (as my daughter has just opined “yeah, because they just don't want to starve to death”).
I've also heard food banks cited as evidence that the Big Society is working - people are starving but, see, there are nice people who take care of them!
Which kind of misses the point.
Posts: 761 | From: The Instrumentality of Man | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Why should it be a "smear" to call UKIP "right wing"? The duck walks and quacks. Of course they are right wing and I imagine most of them would be proud of it, and not feel besmeared at all.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
S. Bacchus
Shipmate
# 17778
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Why should it be a "smear" to call UKIP "right wing"? The duck walks and quacks. Of course they are right wing and I imagine most of them would be proud of it, and not feel besmeared at all.
Yes, and they also show that the tendency to be in perpetual schism is as common on the extremes of the right as it is on the left (although in the latter case it's less confined to extremes). The primary difference I can discern between UKIP and the BNP is the average social class of party members: the BNP is almost entirely working class (led by a Cambridge graduate, though); UKIP is predominately lower-middle.
The Conservative Party, although full of factions that seem hate one another (especially since Thatcher), is rarely at the point actual schism. It seems to be held together primarily by ties of social class, rather than ideology.
So, it seems to me that the British left divides according to minute differences in ideology and structure (and more or less always has, at least since the 1920s), whilst the right divides more according to where one went to school.
--------------------
'It's not that simple. I won't have it to be that simple'.
Posts: 260 | Registered: Jul 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pererin:
Of course the reality-based community is talking about austerity, because we had 13 years of Gordon Brown and his pals pissing money we didn't have up the wall. It doesn't mean that either side has the competence to deliver on this though.
Brown had the money. What he didn't have was proper regulation of the banks. That was because he'd drunk the right-wing idea that the banks if left unregulated would make money and wouldn't piss away money they didn't have, hold the economy to ransom unless the taxpayers bailed them out, and then have the barefaced cheek to claim it was the taxpayers' fault all along.
[ 11. September 2013, 17:02: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
But, but, but, surely the Tories were asking for tighter regulation, weren't they? That would be the rational thing to do.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cedd007
Shipmate
# 16180
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lord Jestocost:
quote:
Originally posted by Cedd007:
Our church-run food bank opened today in our patch of semi-rural Essex. I was disgusted by a government minister's recent comment in Parliament that the plight of people going to food banks was "often as a result of decisions taken by those families" (as my daughter has just opined “yeah, because they just don't want to starve to death”).
I've also heard food banks cited as evidence that the Big Society is working - people are starving but, see, there are nice people who take care of them!
Which kind of misses the point.
The appearance of food banks is a sign that this country has lost its moral compass. During the the French Revolutionary War the tory government authorised Justices of the Peace to give emergency funds to destitute people, because the government recognised cause and effect - and even though they'd read Adam Smith and taken him on board.
Posts: 58 | From: Essex, United Kingdom | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, there was a postwar consensus on a Welfare State, NHS, low unemployment, and so on.
That's because a lot more people were a lot poorer back then, what with the country having been bombed halfway to hell and half a generation's worth of men dead. There wasn't much to lose by voting for socialism.
These days a lot more of us are doing a lot better, and we do have plenty to lose by voting for socialism. That's why the consensus has well and truly gone.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
At heart I agree, a homogeny between political parties is no good (strikes of Communism - vote for any candidate as long as they are the party candidate) but it is a situation which has been brought about by the electorate in the UK. ....
That ancient canard of political parties of all persuasions - it's all the electorate's fault. They let us down.
It may not be a perfect test, but there's no better measure of whether a team of politicians and the programme they advocate should be allowed anywhere near the helm of state than whether they can persuade people to vote for them.
That our corrupt electoral systems then skews the results - by any objective standards the 2005 election should have delivered a seriously hung Parliament - is a different question. It only skews the results between parties that can persuade people to vote for them.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
That's because a lot more people were a lot poorer back then, what with the country having been bombed halfway to hell and half a generation's worth of men dead. There wasn't much to lose by voting for socialism.
No. People voted Labour in 1945 because they thought it was time for a change and they would be better off.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, there was a postwar consensus on a Welfare State, NHS, low unemployment, and so on.
That's because a lot more people were a lot poorer back then, what with the country having been bombed halfway to hell and half a generation's worth of men dead. There wasn't much to lose by voting for socialism.
These days a lot more of us are doing a lot better, and we do have plenty to lose by voting for socialism. That's why the consensus has well and truly gone.
So we carry on allowing the wealth gap to grow and grow until Britain becomes as lawless and ungovernable as a corrupt South American regime? Then the rich will start squealing about spiralling crime rates and so on, and eventually it will dawn on people that the only solution will be a more equal society. But it will take some considerable time and probably a lot of bloodshed before that happens.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by pererin:
With whose money?
Whose money set up the NHS and other aspects of the Welfare State when the country was virtually bankrupt after the Second World War? It can be done.
So we go cap in hand to the Americans again?
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
I don't know how far the new left wing is likely to get, though. Most of the current fringe parties, with the possible exception of the Greens, are to the right of the mainstream; and as several other people have pointed out, the barriers to entry into Parliament are high. The people already on the gravy train have no interest in making it easier for others to climb aboard.
By 'barriers to entry' are we talking about the electoral system or money? I can see that the First Past The Post system for Westminster makes it difficult for smaller parties, or new parties, to get on. But there are other ways to get on. The European elections use PR and smaller parties can and do win council seats.
At its height, the BNP, which is a socialist party in many respects and which never struck me as a particularly sophisticated outfit, managed to win several council seats and was, I think, the opposition on some councils. If memory serves correctly, the BNP were looking to build on this for the 2010 election but they rather imploded instead.
I don't think it's theoretically impossible for a left-wing party - either an established one or a new one - to identify where it is likely to win support, target the area for council elections, build up a strong local base and go on to try to make a real effort in a General Election.
The fact that they don't do that is, I think, because the left-wing 'alternative' has been largely discredited and so there's little public appetite for such an 'alternative'. All these people have left is the occasional protest and harrumphing in the pages of the Guardian and the New Statesman (and on the internet). It's never a pretty sight but at least it's (relatively) harmless.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cedd007 emphasis supplied :
The Old Testament is quite clear that the poor are not to be exploited, and that families should not be allowed to enter a cycle of deprivation.
If this is correct, then presumably Iain Duncan Smith is on the right track...
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
So we carry on allowing the wealth gap to grow and grow until Britain becomes as lawless and ungovernable as a corrupt South American regime? Then the rich will start squealing about spiralling crime rates and so on, and eventually it will dawn on people that the only solution will be a more equal society. But it will take some considerable time and probably a lot of bloodshed before that happens.
I guess you missed the memo that the wealth gap is now at its narrowest in some 30 years, and that crime is down again...
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
It may not be a perfect test, but there's no better measure of whether a team of politicians and the programme they advocate should be allowed anywhere near the helm of state than whether they can persuade people to vote for them.
Yes. And left-wing parties cannot currently pass that test.
quote:
People voted Labour in 1945 because they thought it was time for a change and they would be better off.
Yes, that's what I said. But now we (or enough of us, anyway) would not be better off under such a regime, and thus do not vote for them. Which is why Labour has shifted to the centre-right - it's the only way they can do well in elections.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
So we carry on allowing the wealth gap to grow and grow until Britain becomes as lawless and ungovernable as a corrupt South American regime?
I don't see that happening. Sure, there are crime problems in inner-city areas, but there have always been crime problems in inner-city areas.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Anglican't: quote:
By 'barriers to entry' are we talking about the electoral system or money? I can see that the First Past The Post system for Westminster makes it difficult for smaller parties, or new parties, to get on. But there are other ways to get on. The European elections use PR and smaller parties can and do win council seats.
Both. You need a certain amount of money to run for Parliament; if you don't get the minimum number of votes you will lose your deposit; running an election campaign is expensive. If you're not famous already and/or backed by a mainstream party you are likely to lose the election.
Yes, it's easier for the fringe parties to win seats on councils and in the European elections. But most of the political power in this country is in Parliament; if you want to change things significantly you need to win seats there.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by pererin:
Of course the reality-based community is talking about austerity, because we had 13 years of Gordon Brown and his pals pissing money we didn't have up the wall. It doesn't mean that either side has the competence to deliver on this though.
Brown had the money. What he didn't have was proper regulation of the banks. That was because he'd drunk the right-wing idea that the banks if left unregulated would make money and wouldn't piss away money they didn't have, hold the economy to ransom unless the taxpayers bailed them out, and then have the barefaced cheek to claim it was the taxpayers' fault all along.
Except, long before the banks were bailed out, Brown had pissed his warchest up against the wall on a public spending splurge.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by pererin:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
What interests me more is the post-war social welfare building of Beveridge and Bevan, but this seems to have vanished from current politics.
With whose money?
Whose money set up the NHS and other aspects of the Welfare State when the country was virtually bankrupt after the Second World War? It can be done.
Largely the Americans'.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, there was a postwar consensus on a Welfare State, NHS, low unemployment, and so on.
That's because a lot more people were a lot poorer back then, what with the country having been bombed halfway to hell and half a generation's worth of men dead. There wasn't much to lose by voting for socialism.
These days a lot more of us are doing a lot better, and we do have plenty to lose by voting for socialism. That's why the consensus has well and truly gone.
What a cynical view! My memory is that there was a mood of coming together, not just because people were poor. It was partly out of a sense that people had made sacrifices, therefore we should ensure that everyone had housing, employment, and decent conditions.
For some reason, we have now gone into a position whereby selfishness and mercenary attitudes are seen as ideal. I suppose you could argue that this is because we are more affluent, but I'm not sure about that. We have become very harsh and divisive to each other. Thus, the idea of the undeserving poor has returned - punish them!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by pererin:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
What interests me more is the post-war social welfare building of Beveridge and Bevan, but this seems to have vanished from current politics.
With whose money?
Whose money set up the NHS and other aspects of the Welfare State when the country was virtually bankrupt after the Second World War? It can be done.
Largely the Americans'.
Don't forget the Canadians: they lent us more, in proportion to their national wealth, than the Americans did.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Largely the Americans'.
Not actually true. The American money was mainly used to shore up Britain's overseas committments in the face of the threat of communism.
[ 12. September 2013, 10:02: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Wot no Marshall Plan?
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Anglican't: quote:
By 'barriers to entry' are we talking about the electoral system or money? I can see that the First Past The Post system for Westminster makes it difficult for smaller parties, or new parties, to get on. But there are other ways to get on. The European elections use PR and smaller parties can and do win council seats.
Both. You need a certain amount of money to run for Parliament; if you don't get the minimum number of votes you will lose your deposit; running an election campaign is expensive. If you're not famous already and/or backed by a mainstream party you are likely to lose the election.
Yes, it's easier for the fringe parties to win seats on councils and in the European elections. But most of the political power in this country is in Parliament; if you want to change things significantly you need to win seats there.
I appreciate that Westminster is the place to be, but my argument is that it is not impossible. Th BNP were in some ways on that road. The Greens have been more successful in the way that they gained councillors on Brighton council (and now run the council) and then took a Parliamentary seat there.
The Socialist Party, the SWP, Ken Loach's new outfit or anyone else could try this approach.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
What a cynical view! My memory is that there was a mood of coming together, not just because people were poor. It was partly out of a sense that people had made sacrifices, therefore we should ensure that everyone had housing, employment, and decent conditions.
Maybe, but there aren't many people who have made sacrifices and left behind dependents who need to be looked after any more. Back then the welfare state would have primarily been looking after the widows and children of dead soldiers, nowadays that's not true.
quote:
For some reason, we have now gone into a position whereby selfishness and mercenary attitudes are seen as ideal.
People look after their own interests - always have, always will. With a few exceptions, poor people vote for high welfare and rich people vote for low taxes. As more people become rich enough to be stung by the higher tax rates they will fall into the second category - and £32,000 really isn't that high an income these days. There are a lot of people who are suddenly "rich" enough to be adversely affected by socialist policies, while not actually being rich at all. It's one thing to rail against the CEOs, but it's quite another to try to persuade middle-income folk like me that we should sacrifice our meagre yet hard-earned salaries in the name of your social ideals.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
I guess you missed the memo that the wealth gap is now at its narrowest in some 30 years
??? Evidence?
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Cedd007 emphasis supplied :
The Old Testament is quite clear that the poor are not to be exploited, and that families should not be allowed to enter a cycle of deprivation.
If this is correct, then presumably Iain Duncan Smith is on the right track...
By penalising people for having spare bedrooms and labelling terminally ill people as being fit to work?
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
