|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: UK Election 2015
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Interesting question on "Question Time" this evening. "Why did the electorate punish the Lib Dems for things the coalition got wrong and reward the Tories for things the coalition got right?"
My 2p.
LD voters were largely horrified at what Clegg and Cameron did. Tory voters were largely supportive of what Clegg and Cameron did. One loses all his votes. The other keeps his.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarah G
Shipmate
# 11669
|
Posted
Elections are won from the middle of the political spectrum. Clinton knew it, Blair perfected it, and Cameron got it.
Like it or not, the centre ground is, by definition, where most people are. Any party needs to have those people if it is to have power. If Labour doesn't head off into the middle ground, they'll spend many, many years acting as OfGov.
Those who think Blair was a waste of time as Labour PM. forget, or never knew, just how horrible the alternatives were (Michael Howard with 'Are you thinking what we're thinking?').
Posts: 514 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
ISTM, B62, that one of the failures of the Labour campaign was the failure to tackle that head-on. Why? This was the period that the Conservatives were whining about over-regulation of the financial sector. Labour could have had them by the short and curlies if they wanted.
I don't think so. By making that point, Labour would have had to admit they stuffed up. They were the ones who made decisions on financial regulation, not the Tories.
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Interesting question on "Question Time" this evening. "Why did the electorate punish the Lib Dems for things the coalition got wrong and reward the Tories for things the coalition got right?"
Because 2010 Tory voters liked what the Coalition did, and 2010 Lib Dem voters didn't.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Cod wrote:- quote:
I don't think so. By making that point, Labour would have had to admit they stuffed up. They were the ones who made decisions on financial regulation, not the Tories.
But the thing is that they did admit to inadequate financial regulation, at least twice! (And I have been out of the country for several weeks, so maybe more times than that). So the issue was already on the table, yet the obvious extension was never made.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
Like it or not, the centre ground is, by definition, where most people are.
That, as it goes, is relatively straight forward.
Identifying where that centre ground lies (in terms of policies) is so much harder. Has it actually shifted rightwards?
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
The problem is that the overton window shifts.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
quote:
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
I hope no one is actually thinking Red Ed lost because he wasn't red enough.
Actually, never mind. Yes, the way for Labour to win is to fly that red flag high! ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
Not saying they should be more left, just asking whether you think they would gain more votes by being even closer to the Tory position - as in the Lib Dems. The electorate seemed to think that if a party was closish to the Tories, they might as well vote for the Tories.
Exactly. Labour has been mesmerized by Blair, understandably, who shifted them to the right. But that is not a universal recipe, to be applied year after year. I think Blair's coalition of interests was temporary, and to try to repeat it now is absurd.
But it leaves Labour in a void, and as a void. But I left the Labour party many years ago. They seem like an empty vessel to me.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
GCabot
Shipmate
# 18074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
I fail to see what people believe has changed that would make a more left-leaning Labour Party successful.
The success of the SNP? That's a pretty big signpost right there...
I do not believe that the SNP's success indicates a more left-leaning Labour Party would be more successful. Scotland has generally been more leftward-leaning than the Labour Party for decades now, if not longer. They continued to vote Labour because of historical and pragmatic reasons. The switch to the SNP did not have anything to do with the SNP suddenly being left of Labour. There have nearly always been parties left of Labour. The switch from Labour to the SNP in Scotland has far more to do with that country's internal politics regarding self determination, especially in reaction to the Cameron Government. Even if Labour had adopted a more explicit socialist platform, I seriously doubt that would have stopped them hemorrhaging seats in Scotland. And in any case, even if Labour had managed to hold on to its Scottish seats, that would not change the fact that the Tories just won a straight majority. Labour + SNP still comes out to a forty-three seat deficit to the Tories. Outside of Scotland, I see no evidence to suggest that a more socialist platform would have led to greater success, in fact, just the opposite, judging by this election, among others.
--------------------
The child that is born unto us is more than a prophet; for this is he of whom the Savior saith: "Among them that are born of woman, there hath not risen one greater than John the Baptist."
Posts: 285 | From: The Heav'n Rescued Land | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
GCabot
Shipmate
# 18074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
Like it or not, the centre ground is, by definition, where most people are.
That, as it goes, is relatively straight forward.
Identifying where that centre ground lies (in terms of policies) is so much harder. Has it actually shifted rightwards?
Again, the last time Labour had a non-Blairite majority government was 1966, which is nearly fifty years now. What makes you think a shift of the political center rightwards is necessary to explain this election's results?
--------------------
The child that is born unto us is more than a prophet; for this is he of whom the Savior saith: "Among them that are born of woman, there hath not risen one greater than John the Baptist."
Posts: 285 | From: The Heav'n Rescued Land | Registered: Apr 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
It depends on what you call a socialist programme. It strikes me that Labour has become afraid to mention Keynesian solutions, for fear of contradicting neo-liberal doctrines. But these are the dominant myths of our age, although challenged by some economists. But then Osborne's secret is that he relaxed austerity, when it became obvious that it was choking growth.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
The biggest problem with the austerity drive is that it was unbalanced. There might have been a good argument to say the country needed to tighten our belt and cut our expenditure. Might have been.
But, did we see the MPs voting for that belt tightening also vote for a cut in MP and ministerial salaries and expense allowances? Did we see leading Tories (in and outside of Parliament) take a cut in salaries received from sitting on the boards of assorted businesses and consultancies, allowing that cash flowing into their off-shore bank accounts instead be used to raise the salaries of the lowest paid workers and/or hire more staff on permanent (rather then slavery-like zero hour) contracts? Did we heck. Did we see cuts in big-budget projects like the totally useless and obscene replacement of Trident? Nope, we saw cuts in the health service, welfare, education - the things that ordinary people depend on.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sarah G:
Elections are won from the middle of the political spectrum. Clinton knew it, Blair perfected it, and Cameron got it.
Like it or not, the centre ground is, by definition, where most people are. Any party needs to have those people if it is to have power. If Labour doesn't head off into the middle ground, they'll spend many, many years acting as OfGov.
Those who think Blair was a waste of time as Labour PM. forget, or never knew, just how horrible the alternatives were (Michael Howard with 'Are you thinking what we're thinking?').
And here's one of the problems. That's following, not leading.
I can understand that politicians are basically people who just want to be popular, but where's the vision in an approach that says we need to be where most people are?
You know what actually inspires people? A leader who doesn't find where most of the people are and say "oh good, you're all here", but who stands on a high point and says "I think we need to all come over HERE".
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Maybe, orfeo. But there is another factor in play. The one beautifully illustrated by "Yes Prime Minister".
quote:
Sir Humphrey: If you want to be really sure that the Minister doesn't accept it, you must say the decision is "courageous".
Bernard: And that's worse than "controversial"?
Sir Humphrey: Oh, yes! "Controversial" only means "this will lose you votes". "Courageous" means "this will lose you the election"!
Were the Lib Dems courageous and public spirited in agreeing to be the minor partner in the coalition, given the financial instability in 2010? Or just short sighted? I suppose opinions will vary on that, but they have certainly paid for it.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
agingjb
Shipmate
# 16555
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Were the Lib Dems courageous and public spirited in agreeing to be the minor partner in the coalition, given the financial instability in 2010? Or just short sighted? I suppose opinions will vary on that, but they have certainly paid for it.
Was it worth throwing away an occasionally effective voice for decency and compromise in politics for whatever advantages might have been perceived in the policies of a political opponent?
--------------------
Refraction Villanelles
Posts: 464 | From: Southern England | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GCabot:
Again, the last time Labour had a non-Blairite majority government was 1966, which is nearly fifty years now. What makes you think a shift of the political center rightwards is necessary to explain this election's results?
I don't. I think it's equally likely that the disenfranchisement of leftist voters by the historically left-leaning party is to blame.
This is not to say that rethinking what left-of-centre policies might look like in a post-industrial age isn't called for.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alwyn
Shipmate
# 4380
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
... I think it's equally likely that the disenfranchisement of leftist voters by the historically left-leaning party is to blame.
This is not to say that rethinking what left-of-centre policies might look like in a post-industrial age isn't called for.
I think those are good points. In this election Labour seemed to be simultaneously too supportive of austerity for lefties like me, and unsufficiently supportive of austerity for the centre/right voters they seemed to want to attract.
As I see it, the global financial crisis should have been a catalyst for a shift in politics similar to the shifts in Britain after the Second World War (the introduction of the NHS, the modern welfare state and so on) and after 1979 (privatisation, weak regulation and free-market economics). For me, Paul Krugman's recent article 'The austerity delusion' (link) is helpful food for thought.
--------------------
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc
Posts: 849 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
I don't think Labour's problem was too-left (they weren't substantially to the left of the Blairites) or necessarily too-right (they didn't lose enough votes on the left to make a difference to the result). The problem was that they lacked a coherent narrative for government. They could have come out tub-thumping about the kind of "big society" the tories are building on the backs of the poor and vulnerable. How the savings made have been miniscule (2 billion a year on welfare) because the tories mismanaged the economy. Reminding people that Britain remains a wealthy country, and we are not faced with a choice of fixing the economy and helping those in need. The thing I really noticed from Labour was a lack of anger about the damage done by the tories. It seems like they have no sense of outrage, they just think they would be better "managers" of much the same thing (even if they would perhaps, in fact, do some things differently). That's why they lost so badly in Scotland. Their policies weren't all that different from the SNP's, what was different was that Sturgeon had a narrative and a vision that Labour lacked.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Alwyn, I think the major issue involved in the application of Keynesian economics is that governments have very rarely acted to reduce government spending and deficits in the "up" part of the cycle. That was always part of the theory. Keynes didn't abandon the notion of long term balance. It was the political process which added short term "you've never had it so good".
The argument about the austerity delusion looks reasonable, as far as it goes, but I wish it had been more balanced about government actions throughout the cycle. Being a reserve currency just ups the ante on confidence, so far as long term fiscal management is concerned. There is such a thing as reckless printing of money. And if confidence is lost in the will or ability of governments to manage economies - well, then you get Greece.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
History will hopefully judge Clegg's coalition sacrifice as an honourable one. Had he not put his party forward then presumably it would have forced a second General Election muddle.
Having that when the financial crash was 2 years old, with the possibility of Brown scraping through and Clegg propping it up, would have been as much use as the 70s Lib-Lab pact.
What 'astonished' me about the Election outcome was not so much the Tory victory but Mrs C's dress when Dave made his victory speech. Was the Lib yellow bib sown into the back her dress in anticipation of having to work with the Lib- dems again?
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And here's one of the problems. That's following, not leading.
I can understand that politicians are basically people who just want to be popular, but where's the vision in an approach that says we need to be where most people are?
You know what actually inspires people? A leader who doesn't find where most of the people are and say "oh good, you're all here", but who stands on a high point and says "I think we need to all come over HERE".
While I 100% agree on that, the trouble is I think politicians in the UK - especially those of the 2 main parties - are held in such low esteem that in the present culture that they'd be accused of being "out of touch" or "patronising" or whatever.
For example: both Labour and the Conservatives have spoken about immigration in broadly negative terms in this election campaign, mainly responding to public concerns about how immigration is taking away jobs, suppressing wages and negatively impacting on British culture (whatever that is). The Conservatives seem to have done this as a means to bash Labour ("Look what they've done by letting all these people in" sort of thing), while Labour seem to have done so by way of accepting the Tory narrative and apologising for it (even though Labour regularly introduced new rules and systems designed to put tighter curbs on the numbers of people coming into the country).
Now, against this backdrop, imagine if the leader of a political party tried to stand in part on a pro-immigration ticket. They might argue that immigration enriches our culture rather than destroying it, that immigrants do many jobs that the British people can't or won't do (the NHS and the catering sector would probably be destroyed without immigrants) and that studies show that immigrants actually contribute to the public purse and don't put pressure on infrastructure, housing etc. In short, if they stood up and said "We believe immigratgion is good for the UK, here's why, vote for us". They'd be accused of not listening to ordinary people, of not caring about the concerns of working people, even of deliberately trying to sell out British workers and destroy British culture. And they'd tank massively at the polls.
I say this as someone who is, more or less, pro-immigration and someone who would love to see leadership in the way you describe. But it would take someone truly spectacular to do that, someone who could change the debate while still showing that they weren't trying to impose but were still listening to people. And I honestly don't see anyone around at the moment who actually can do that.
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
[Labour] lacked a coherent narrative for government. ... Their policies weren't all that different from the SNP's, what was different was that Sturgeon had a narrative and a vision that Labour lacked.
I think that's quite accurate. The SNP have been riding a wave since the start of the referendum campaign, they've been presenting a vision of what Scotland could be. Since September that vision hasn't changed, what has changed is that they're saying "we can still do most of this, even within the union. We need to be released from some of the shackles of Westminster to do it". That vision of a vibrant, prosperous Scotland with all the benefits of a wealthy and civilised society (free education, health care, a functioning welfare state etc) is incredibly attractive.
I don't see an equivalent vision in the other main political parties. Cameron has offered us a "we'll continue with what we had been doing" message, Labour has offered a Tory-lite package of "we'll do what the Tories were doing, but not quite as ruthlessly", and the LibDems were saying "we won't make the same mistake as 5 years ago".
The only other party with some form of vision and fire were UKIP, even though their vision is some vile racist "British" exclusiveness anti-EU shite.
The Greens have a great vision of environmental sustainability. But, they're still struggling to communicate that they have a wider policy base, and when they get into discussions on economic policy they've so far failed to adequately communicate that they're working from a radically different economic theoretical basis, and that although it follows different rules that policy is still coherent and viable.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
I felt that Milliband, if not Labour in general, did have a vision, but one which was so much bound up in intellectual political theory that it could not be communicated.
The Greens have a big vision but are let down by their lack of short-term practical solutions and policies.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The only other party with some form of vision and fire were UKIP, even though their vision is some vile racist "British" exclusiveness anti-EU shite.
You're not really keen on them, are you? ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
imagine if the leader of a political party tried to stand in part on a pro-immigration ticket. They might argue that immigration enriches our culture rather than destroying it, that immigrants do many jobs that the British people can't or won't do (the NHS and the catering sector would probably be destroyed without immigrants) and that studies show that immigrants actually contribute to the public purse and don't put pressure on infrastructure, housing etc. In short, if they stood up and said "We believe immigratgion is good for the UK, here's why, vote for us".
Interestingly, there was one party that has been consistently pro-immigration for many years. That's the Scottish Nationalist Party. It didn't seem to do them any harm at all.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The only other party with some form of vision and fire were UKIP, even though their vision is some vile racist "British" exclusiveness anti-EU shite.
You're not really keen on them, are you?
Whatever gave you that impression?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The argument about the austerity delusion looks reasonable, as far as it goes, but I wish it had been more balanced about government actions throughout the cycle. Being a reserve currency just ups the ante on confidence, so far as long term fiscal management is concerned.
I think you are putting too much weight on government actions - firstly if we are in an era of much lower interest rates generally, then it makes sense that debts would also be at slightly higher levels, secondly for healthy economies debt is paid off by faster growth, rather than by running primary surpluses (the latter mainly being needed when a government isn't in control of its own fate). Thirdly, a lot of the increase in debt came about at the point at which the banking crisis kicked off - both in terms of short term funds needed to unblock the banking system, and automatic stabilisers like welfare kicking in for people who were unemployed.
Lastly - and most importantly - regardless of what you think of the regulation of banks (*) it's worth remembering that the reason things seemed so bleak back then was that we didn't know how big the hole in the banking sector actually was (and I'd argue that we still don't).
And to all those saying that it was all Labour's fault for de-regulating the banking sector. The Tories have yet to re-regulate the sector, and lets not forget that back in 2007 they were pushing for even *less* regulation:
'The government claims that this regulation is all necessary. They seem to believe that without it banks could steal our money'
'We see no need to continue to regulate the provision of mortgage finance, as it is the lending institutions rather than the client taking the risk'
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
Originally posted by GCabot:
quote:
I do not believe that the SNP's success indicates a more left-leaning Labour Party would be more successful. Scotland has generally been more leftward-leaning than the Labour Party for decades now, if not longer. They continued to vote Labour because of historical and pragmatic reasons.
I disagree. Scots continued to vote Labour because there was no other credible left-of-centre party to vote for.
quote:
The switch to the SNP did not have anything to do with the SNP suddenly being left of Labour. There have nearly always been parties left of Labour. The switch from Labour to the SNP in Scotland has far more to do with that country's internal politics regarding self determination, especially in reaction to the Cameron Government.
Again, I disagree. The SNP's success is due to the fact that, having gained practical experience in Holyrood, they have now become a credible left-of-centre party. They have brought in policies in Scotland that people like - free prescriptions, no University tuition fees, no Bedroom Tax, for example.
Other left-of-centre parties in Scotland never gained that sort of credibility, which is why they didn't take votes from Labour.
quote:
Even if Labour had adopted a more explicit socialist platform, I seriously doubt that would have stopped them hemorrhaging seats in Scotland.
Jim Murphy tried to adopt a more socialist platform, but was shat on from high by Westminster Labour. I think this is the point at which all hope for Labour in Scotland was lost.
quote:
And in any case, even if Labour had managed to hold on to its Scottish seats, that would not change the fact that the Tories just won a straight majority. Labour + SNP still comes out to a forty-three seat deficit to the Tories.
True.
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
It was a general criticism, chris, not pointed specifically at any particular post-war UK government. The fuel for the austerity delusion seems to me to come from lack of government austerity in the up part of the cycle. That was one of the factors which contributed to the credibility of Friedmann and his political "children".
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The fuel for the austerity delusion seems to me to come from lack of government austerity in the up part of the cycle.
Sure, but I'd argue that in the most recent cycle it was a seeming lack, rather than something actual.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Stejjie:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
And here's one of the problems. That's following, not leading.
I can understand that politicians are basically people who just want to be popular, but where's the vision in an approach that says we need to be where most people are?
You know what actually inspires people? A leader who doesn't find where most of the people are and say "oh good, you're all here", but who stands on a high point and says "I think we need to all come over HERE".
While I 100% agree on that, the trouble is I think politicians in the UK - especially those of the 2 main parties - are held in such low esteem that in the present culture that they'd be accused of being "out of touch" or "patronising" or whatever.
For example: both Labour and the Conservatives have spoken about immigration in broadly negative terms in this election campaign, mainly responding to public concerns about how immigration is taking away jobs, suppressing wages and negatively impacting on British culture (whatever that is). The Conservatives seem to have done this as a means to bash Labour ("Look what they've done by letting all these people in" sort of thing), while Labour seem to have done so by way of accepting the Tory narrative and apologising for it (even though Labour regularly introduced new rules and systems designed to put tighter curbs on the numbers of people coming into the country).
Now, against this backdrop, imagine if the leader of a political party tried to stand in part on a pro-immigration ticket. They might argue that immigration enriches our culture rather than destroying it, that immigrants do many jobs that the British people can't or won't do (the NHS and the catering sector would probably be destroyed without immigrants) and that studies show that immigrants actually contribute to the public purse and don't put pressure on infrastructure, housing etc. In short, if they stood up and said "We believe immigratgion is good for the UK, here's why, vote for us". They'd be accused of not listening to ordinary people, of not caring about the concerns of working people, even of deliberately trying to sell out British workers and destroy British culture. And they'd tank massively at the polls.
I say this as someone who is, more or less, pro-immigration and someone who would love to see leadership in the way you describe. But it would take someone truly spectacular to do that, someone who could change the debate while still showing that they weren't trying to impose but were still listening to people. And I honestly don't see anyone around at the moment who actually can do that.
I know I'm cross-posting, but it's rather baffling that you've left out the SNP. I don't live in Scotland, but it's difficult to ignore their pro-immigration position. Both in the referendum debate and the election, they have made it clear that they welcome immigrants.
I suppose one might say that this is different, because of the passions around in Scottish politics, but the days seem long gone when Labour could arouse ardour like that. They come across as apologetically imitating the Tories, and working in and around Tory narratives - check out the notorious immigration mug.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Here is a smidgen of good news.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Indeed, and it's good to see that the situation is improving across parties. The Lib Dems can perhaps be forgiven on account of having hardly anyone left.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The fuel for the austerity delusion seems to me to come from lack of government austerity in the up part of the cycle.
Sure, but I'd argue that in the most recent cycle it was a seeming lack, rather than something actual.
Fair point. Off on holiday to the Dales and further north for a couple of weeks. At the end of which time this thread seems likely to be history!
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stejjie
Shipmate
# 13941
|
Posted
@Alan Creswell and quetzalcoatl:
Fair point about the SNP: mea culpa, I honestly wasn't aware of their pro-immigration stance - more power to their elbow!
That said, I do still wonder how that would go down in England; I'm fairly sure that it would be much less well received down here.
That said, is it not possible that at least some of that might be that the over-riding question in Scotland is its status in the UK, the after-effects of the independence referendum and what seems from here to be the growing sense of estrangement between Scotland and the rest of the UK? That's not to say people who voted SNP didn't care about the issues and only voted because of their stance on this question, but that that stance might have caused people to put such mis-givings aside and vote for them.
Perhaps in England it's different: the immigration issue seems to be caught up in all the debates about English "identity" etc.
I dunno... I just don't see an avowedly pro-immigration party in England doing that well, sadly.
--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist
Posts: 1117 | From: Urmston, Manchester, UK | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Here is a smidgen of good news.
I wonder if 30% is enough to stop the idiotic puerile heckling instead of proper debate at PMQ.
I have just read last weekend's interview in the Guardian with Dennis Skinner, who said he only stood this time because Cameron had three times in the House told him to resign, and then checked that he is still in. So he (Cameron) hasn't had that small victory.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
This is a non-point which you make because, once again, you are assuming that democracy is inevitably about parties. My view is that it is about electing the individuals who govern us. While it makes sense for those individuals to organise themselves into political parties, the fact remains that government is carried on by real people who use their own minds and experiences to make decisions on behalf of those who have elected them.
I don't know what century and what country you live in. It's definitely not the 21stC UK though. I have not spotted the slightest difference here to the "party politics" I have seen in Germany. Zip. Zilch. Nada. You are not being governed by "individuals", other than in the sense that obviously any human grouping is made up out of individuals. In fact, take this whole bloody thread. It is mostly a whine about how the Conservatives have won, in spite of being so mean. Oh, and how Labour has lost its socialist ways. And we wonder what the SNP will do, and how the Lib Dems will recover from being crushed etc. If individuals are being mentioned, then it is almost invariably the party leadership. We are for the most part not discussing the fate of this or that backbench MP. And we are not discussing either how say Mr Cameron did in his constituency in Oxford, nobody really cares about that, we are discussing his management at party level. You declared yourself to be a long time Lib Dem supporter, and gave a long analysis of the problems faced by that party. You didn't say that you are supporting some particular MP and didn't give us details on what challenges that individual faced.
The UK is quite simply another party-governed democracy, at least at the national level. Deal with it.
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
The system as used in places like Germany, NZ and Scotland subverts that principle, and to that extent they are less democratic than FPTP polities.
As mentioned, in the German system anybody elected in their constituency gets a seat in parliament (with a caveat concerning the "hurdle", which however practically never plays a role).
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
In any event, most electoral systems "systematically trash" the votes of those whose preferred candidate or slate of candidates does not win. Not many countries have party proportional governments. One side has to lose.
You now have a 12-seat majority in Parliament - 51.2% of seats, Sinn Fein corrected - for a party that was supported by 36.9% of voters. Yes, in every system votes get "trashed" in the sense of some candidates losing. But that does not justify this kind of result.
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
No. "Democracy" as currently understood is the principle that people choose who governs them. It is less about successful government than human rights.
Yes, and now try to turn your principle into reality. Invariably, you will have to make pragmatic choices to get some system that works in practice. Remember, this is about you critiquing the "hurdle" as not being principled. And my point is quite simply that the "hurdle" is a pragmatic measure, as there must be many pragmatic measures if one wants to turn the ideal of democracy into an actual reality. Pretty much all of the actual democracy you find yourself in is based on pragmatic choices people have made. For example, why precisely do you not expect to vote until in about five years from now? The election cycle is not part of your "democratic ideal", is it now? It is what you get when you try to turn your democratic ideal into reality, and have to face the fact that people cannot be expected to vote all the time, and that politicians need some stability of power to do their work. The election cycle is pragmatic solution for a practical problem in implementing the ideal of democracy. So is the "hurdle". You can of course critique the "hurdle" on various grounds, but not because it is not "principled". Very little in the actual political process is "principled".
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
With the exception of Italy, this is really not a problem for mature democracies.
The UK is a mature democracy. As shown above, in a proportional system without "hurdle", the UK would now most likely head for a re-election. With the "hurdle", there would most likely be a coalition government. This kind of measure works because political coalitions are the harder to form the more parties are involved. And the chance to construct a majority with fewer parties increases if there is a minimum seat size to them. You may not like the "hurdle" for other reasons, but it certainly does the job it is intended to do.
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
If MPs squabble too much amongst themselves to form a stable administration, the appropriate solution is for the electorate to kick them all out and replace them with other MPs. Under a constituency-based system, this is simple.
Frankly, this is so far removed from the political reality in the UK that I will not bother commenting on it.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Here is a smidgen of good news.
I wonder if 30% is enough to stop the idiotic puerile heckling instead of proper debate at PMQ.
It wasn't improved for having a woman PM, so I doubt an increase in the proportion of women will improve the tone and content of PMQ. I detest PMQ, as it is inherently puerile, but it is about as subtle and sophisticated as modern parliamentary reporting can handle.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
Originally posted by Stejjie:
quote:
That said, is it not possible that at least some of that might be that the over-riding question in Scotland is its status in the UK, the after-effects of the independence referendum and what seems from here to be the growing sense of estrangement between Scotland and the rest of the UK? That's not to say people who voted SNP didn't care about the issues and only voted because of their stance on this question, but that that stance might have caused people to put such mis-givings aside and vote for them.
Scotland has fewer immigrants than England, and the immigrants we do have are more dispersed throughout the community.
I can't compare and contrast, because I only see the Scottish experience, but I'd say it's easy for an immigrant here to have a dual Scottish / ethnic identity e.g. the Muslim teacher who wears a tartan hijab on St Andrews Day.
One of the SNP organisers in my constituency is an English born Muslim woman who was wearing a "Proud to be Scottish" badge when I saw her last week. It's possible to rock the "bagpipes and bhangra" look like Humza Yousef.
So it doesn't have to be an "either / or"
Also, Scotland has a long, long tradition of outward emigration; there are few of us who don't have relatives in Australia, or Canada, or America. Every Burns night, there are stories in the press of far-flung Burns suppers and the difficulties of exporting haggis. As a result, we grew up knowing that it's normal for people to retain elements of their own culture in another country.
If we can have Highland Games in America, why shouldn't there be the Mela in Glasgow?
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
OK, I have a question from this election. It is a genuine question, that I am actually puzzled about.
One of my colleagues at work has said that he only voted Tory to keep Labour out, and would have voted UKIP otherwise.
I can actually understand people who want more right-wing economic approach. I think they are wildly mistaken, but they feel it has some logic and sense. In this case, it may be that supporting UKIP makes sense.
Except that he is Indian. What he seems to misunderstand is that UKIP (and the Tories) are not wanting to support people like him. If UKIP were to get into power, his children could be refused jobs because they are "not British". The radical right are not supporting people like him - they are supporting White British people.
So my question is, why are relatively intelligent people like him so politically naive and stupid? How come people can be so stupid politically? Or is it just me who has been politically active for many years, and so find those who only think about politics every 5 years naive?
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
I don't think immigration was high on the list of voting priorities in Scotland. More of it being a non-issue than anything else.
Much more was made of immigration during the referendum campaign, as an example of Westminster policies adversely affecting Scotland. Much was made of the positive benefit to Scotland of immigration - economically, socially and culturally. The same arguments could be made in England, but rather than emphasise the positive economic benefit of immigration both Tory and Labour have pandered to the misconceived pseudo-racism of the masses. Another case of going where the people are rather than standing on high ground and saying "come over here". So, we have immigration controls adding to the strangling of economic recovery, and the prospect of further reductions in immigration, rather than a more open policy that is both more just and beneficial to the economy.
Further powers to allow Scotland more control over immigration are supposed to be in the package the Tories have promised. Whether they will materialise, and just how much freedom to set immigration policy in Holyrood they will give, remain to be seen.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
I think it boils down to Farage having a very good PR approach - he picked something that is a centre of british culture - the pub - and made sure that he had lots of photos taken in a pub or holding a pint or a can of beer - the last one I saw was unopened - it was just a prop. He therefore appeals to people who don't really think about politics much but want British culture to be preserved.
It's not so far off an indian political party choosing a cow as its symbol. And he also chose the £ sign - so brash and gross and a totally naff image. But in fact it's a symbol of British uniqueness and also not a Euro. And the amateurishness of the design is another plus... The main parties OTOH chose symbols that are patently modern corporate PR-designed logos... it's not the symbol that people see, but the corporateness and blandness of them. And via that over-graphic designed-ness, their utter lack of connection to the kind of culture people long for.
[ 09. May 2015, 11:17: Message edited by: itsarumdo ]
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Drewthealexander
Shipmate
# 16660
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
OK, I have a question from this election. It is a genuine question, that I am actually puzzled about.
One of my colleagues at work has said that he only voted Tory to keep Labour out, and would have voted UKIP otherwise.
I can actually understand people who want more right-wing economic approach. I think they are wildly mistaken, but they feel it has some logic and sense. In this case, it may be that supporting UKIP makes sense.
Except that he is Indian. What he seems to misunderstand is that UKIP (and the Tories) are not wanting to support people like him. If UKIP were to get into power, his children could be refused jobs because they are "not British". The radical right are not supporting people like him - they are supporting White British people.
So my question is, why are relatively intelligent people like him so politically naive and stupid? How come people can be so stupid politically? Or is it just me who has been politically active for many years, and so find those who only think about politics every 5 years naive?
UKIP has many followers from ethic minorities. Established racial communities have common concerns about new immigrants. If you live in Happytown and have an influx of people from Immigrania equivalent to 10% of your existing population, this puts pressures on your schools, health, and other public services whether your forebears date back five generations or five hundred.
Posts: 499 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Here is a smidgen of good news.
I wonder if 30% is enough to stop the idiotic puerile heckling instead of proper debate at PMQ.
Seeing that the idiotic puerile heckling before the election was done by both male and female MPs I can't see it making a difference.
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Except people who are themselves immigrants should know perfectly well how population growth actually works. For them to fall for some of the mythical fears seems particularly wrong-headed.
[x-post]
[ 09. May 2015, 13:00: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
A lot of the UKIP increase has come at the expense of the more dangerous far right parties.
The BNP lost 99.7% of their vote from 2010. That is something for all lovers of democracy, left or right, to celebrate. ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
If you live in Happytown and have an influx of people from Immigrania equivalent to 10% of your existing population, this puts pressures on your schools, health, and other public services whether your forebears date back five generations or five hundred.
The pressure on schools etc is only an issue of they are not adequately funded. For which there is no excuse within a community that is experiencing economic growth which is almost always the case where there are new immigrants.
By definition, immigrants who make the trip on their own have the resources and determination to immigrate - they have the money for the visa application, airfare etc which almost certainly means they are skilled and can easily find work, and the determination to move is also the same sort of characteristic that will mean they're likely to work hard, often establishing their own business. People like this will generate jobs and without a doubt pay more in taxes than the costs to the tax payer of the associated services they need - schools, doctors etc.
Other immigrants are brought over by others, usually people already here. They're brought in to do low-skilled, low-paid jobs that employers can't find anyone locally to fill. Which is why a lot of people from Eastern Europe are here, and they usually come for short periods of time. That means they won't be here to retire and claim pensions, they often have no family with them and so no schools needed, and rarely need to see the doctor. On low wages they won't pay much in tax, but they're not asking much from the tax payer either.
The "problem" isn't with the immigrants. The "problem" is with a government that doesn't return the increased tax revenue they bring back into the community where they live to provide things like schools and medical centres. Of course, the incoming government is unlikely to pass back tax revenue from the native population into such things either, preferring to squander it on tax-breaks for their wealthy chums and unnecessary nuclear armed submarines.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Alan: ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
itsarumdo
Shipmate
# 18174
|
Posted
local economy (small traders rather than national/international chains, local taxes back into local services) makes for local wealth and also builds community. A lot of the changes we have seen in the past 25 years are (probably accidentally) anti-community.
--------------------
"Iti sapis potanda tinone" Lycophron
Posts: 994 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
Just looking through some of the earlier comments about PR and reading a BBC article on how things might otherwise have turned out. Interestingly, if we'd had PR, UKIP would have got 83 seats.
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Well I know which constituency yours is then - and if that vote goes any way other than blue I'll streak naked down Sheep St. Majority at the moment is what? 18,000 ish? She'll get about 12,000 maj I think.
30,000ish, actually. Sheep St is spared ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dogwalker
Shipmate
# 14135
|
Posted
A connection between UK 2015 and US 2016: maybe this is well known over there, but it surprised me.
Larry Sanders, who stood (and lost) for the Greens in Oxford West and Abingdon, and US Senator Bernie Sanders are brothers, sharing similar political outlooks.
CNN has an interview with Larry.
--------------------
If God had meant for us to fly, he wouldn't have given us the railways. - Unknown
Posts: 155 | From: Milford, MA, USA | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
