Labour faces "utter destruction at the next election" if it continues on its current

[CyberRose]

Really? Why?

Because they support business interests naturally out of their ideology, and don't have to be pressured into it with accounts of economic downfall (and unhappy voters) if they don't like Labour. Labour's membership is essentially left wing, it's just that the government are scared that upsetting businesses will result in votes lost (if they economy suffers). The Tories have no such concerns about the working class and have promised for years that if elected they will opt out of EU employment legislation allowing employers to force their staff to jump through hoops. Despite what people think about Labour, they have introduced some extremely beneficial policies for the working classes, under the Tories you won't see anything similar and might even see reversals in some instances...

 

[butchersapron]

Like this you mean?

Blair Wins Opt-Out On EU Rights Charter

Britain has been offered an opt-out from a new charter of rights in the latest version of an EU reform treaty being negotiated in Brussels, it has emerged.

The Charter of Fundamental Rights - which guarantees the rights of EU citizens over a range of areas, including the right to strike - will not be legally binding on the UK if the treaty is approved in its latest form.

They included Britain's ability to determine its own labour laws, foreign policy, domestic law on issues such as tax and benefits and criminal and jurisprudence legislation.

British businesses were keen to ensure that the Charter was not enshrined in British law, as they feared it would encourage industrial unrest and undermine relations between workers and bosses.

 

[poului]

Like this you mean?

Blair Wins Opt-Out On EU Rights Charter

Fuck me.

 

[doddles]

Compare your argument you make above to the ones people were putting around 1997 about Blair, he'll put sensible sounding policies that will attempt to hoover up the soft right but once in power he'll move the overall economic picture leftwards. Well, he didn't. He carried on with pretty much exactly the same policies as the previous tory govt. Exactly as Cameron will do. Because there's no need to do anything else. Both parties have rthe same agenda, the pursuit of business interests - they both react exactly the same way.

The comparison with Blair circa 1997 doesn't work - he never had any intentions to move massively to the left, whereas the Tories have the intention to move as far right (economically) as they can get away with. The difference then is not one of idealogy, but that whereas Labour has *some* constraints (it at least has to pay lip service to their traditional supporters/unions and a few party stalwarts etc), the Tories will have *nothing* constraining them from a huge jump to the economic right.

There's no real difference between right and left in major governing parties full stop except for a few very limited local/regional/city examples in europe. Every govt is following the neo-liberal agenda as far as it can in some mad rush to the bottom

Are you claiming that the politics in Sweden are as neo-liberal as the UK?!

Just about every indicator of inequality shows rises under labour. They showed the same thing under the tories from 1979 onwards. Because both parties enacted policies lead to this.

Agreed. But the Tories will push it further, faster. Like comparing two heavily loaded trucks rolling down the hill, both with mad drivers at wheel trying to get to the bottom as quickly as possible. One with an increasingly powerless bunch of folks dragging on the back trying to slow it down (dropping off, one by one as they give up on a hopeless cause), the other with a growing army of supporters giving it a push.

Maybe a Conservative victory wouldn't be such a bad thing. Maybe things need to be totally, completely, 100% f**d up before we'll see change. I'm a little more optimistic than that, and cling to the hope that by doing whatever we can to slow down the Labour truck, we might be saved before we hit the bottom by someone with a big truck driving the other way. Or maybe a shift in the economic/political landscape that stops the downward plunge.

Apologies for the bad metaphor.

 

[weltweit]

... However, contrast that with the Conservatives, who have no trade union pressure and actually support the interests of businesses ideologically.

Labour might not be everyone's cup of tea, but there is no way you can claim to support the working classes if you actually want the Conservatives to win because if you think the working class are suffering now under Labour, you ain't seen nothing until you see how much they are suffering under the Conservatives...

That does not have to be true.

If the tories support business, they may improve the business environment in the UK and could lead to more business and better employment possibilities.

 

[weltweit]

Well altho I was only born in 1981 (it's my birthday today in fact! ) ...

Happy Birthday CR

Born in 1981, boy does that make me feel old!

 

[butchersapron]

The comparison with Blair circa 1997 doesn't work - he never had any intentions to move massively to the left, whereas the Tories have the intention to move as far right (economically) as they can get away with. The difference then is not one of idealogy, but that whereas Labour has *some* constraints (it at least has to pay lip service to their traditional supporters/unions and a few party stalwarts etc), the Tories will have *nothing* constraining them from a huge jump to the economic right.
Are you claiming that the politics in Sweden are as neo-liberal as the UK?!

It works in that some people believed there wa s secret plan to move in a direction not indicated by their publiclaly stated policies. And in Blair s case they were wrong. Very Wrong. he simply took on the same sort of approach as the tories and ran with it. Which is exactly what they're still doing today and what Cameron will do after he wins the next General Election. There will be no massive assault as happened under labour because they don't need to do that anymore, because they won. They won in 84-85 and the changes they introduced are now part and parcel of normal everyday political functioning and any mainstream politician challenging them is veiwed as outside of the Pale. They don't need a secret plan.

I'm claiming the the Swedish govt is acting under the same economic pressures from international capital as elsewhere that are leading it to increasingly act in line with the neo-liberal agenda, and this has been taken on board across the traditonal spectrum, including the 'left' SDP.

Agreed. But the Tories will push it further, faster. Like comparing two heavily loaded trucks rolling down the hill, both with mad drivers at wheel trying to get to the bottom as quickly as possible. One with an increasingly powerless bunch of folks dragging on the back trying to slow it down (dropping off, one by one as they give up on a hopeless cause), the other with a growing army of supporters giving it a push.

Maybe a Conservative victory wouldn't be such a bad thing. Maybe things need to be totally, completely, 100% f**d up before we'll see change. I'm a little more optimistic than that, and cling to the hope that by doing whatever we can to slow down the Labour truck, we might be saved before we hit the bottom by someone with a big truck driving the other way. Or maybe a shift in the economic/political landscape that stops the downward plunge.

Apologies for the bad metaphor.

I see only one truck - and we just need to get off

 

[Hocus Eye.]

... Labour's membership is essentially left wing...Despite what people think about Labour, they have introduced some extremely beneficial policies for the working classes.

Labour's remaining membership is certainly not left wing. All of the left wingers in my constituency had left the party by 1999. This must have been repeated all over the country. The members remaining talked incessantly about 'an electable party'. That is not ideological politics let alone 'left wing'. In any case the members of the Labour Party had no say in party policy once Blair was crowned king and changed the party rules.

There have been no 'beneficial policies for the working classes' either. All of the schemes and 'packages of measures' aimed at massaging the unemployment figures have lead to a worsening of the conditions of the working class whether employed or unemployed.

The lesson to learn is that Labour did not just change its image, it abandoned its whole ideology. The push for mass recruitment of members under Blair was designed also to replace the old left wing members with so called Social Democrat minded members. In those heady days when the prospect of getting rid of Thatcher was in most minds this worked. Later as the Neo-Liberal economic policies began to bite, the few remaining left wingers and socialists left the party. This is why there are no activists to do leafleting and canvassing and electioneering is done from the centre via the media.

 

[CyberRose]

Like this you mean?

Blair Wins Opt-Out On EU Rights Charter

Well no actually I was referring to the social chapter of the EU, not the Charter on Human Rights. But do you know why they opted out of the charter? Do you think its because they didn't want to sign up to it because they are so pro-business? Or do you think it was because every right-wing newspaper and business group said that the legislation was dictatorship by Brussels and that it's be "job destroying". It would not have gone down well with the voters (who ironically stand to benefit from the charter)

You need to always think about how our political system works - the aim above all else is to win votes. That's why I think Labour has moved to the right, out of fear of losing votes, rather than being ideologically pro-business (how do you explain Labour backbenchers or all their members outside the cabinet being fairly left wing still?) If Labour introduces a policy that businesses say will wreck the economy, then that's gonna scare any party in the UK system that wants to win votes...

 

[butchersapron]

It's hard to have the debate because some of us seem to talking from within different paradigms (and i don't mean doddle here). It's absolutley crystal-clear to me that the days of labour = the left and therefore representing, defending or extending the interests of the w/c and the tories = right, and doing the same for buiness, are well gone (they never really existed in those terms anyway, but let's leave that for now) and have been for decades now.

What we have today is parties with exactly the same pro-capital policies batttling to present then in the best light to various interests (the electorate, or certain small sections of it, business, media etc) and hoping that the regular global economic turbulence doesn't hit whhe it's their turn in power. It's not left vs right, it's barely even politics as tradtionally understood.

So when people take the approach that labour - left (defenders of the w/c) and need to be supported against the 'right' i'm afraidd that i can't help shaking my head and thinking 'Where have you been?'

 

[doddles]

And the idea that the Tories and Labour are the same is not true either, when one looks at any number if relevant indicators. e.g., comparing Thatcher to Major to Blair:

http://blog.ctrlbreak.co.uk/wp-content/ifsincomes2.gif

Interestingly, that UK graph paints a very similar picture to this table, comparing Clinton to Bush:

http://www.epi.org/webfeatures/econindicators/income_20080826_table2_600.gif

There *is* a lesser of two evils.

 

[CyberRose]

The lesson to learn is that Labour did not just change its image, it abandoned its whole ideology. The push for mass recruitment of members under Blair was designed also to replace the old left wing members with so called Social Democrat minded members. In those heady days when the prospect of getting rid of Thatcher was in most minds this worked. Later as the Neo-Liberal economic policies began to bite, the few remaining left wingers and socialists left the party. This is why there are no activists to do leafleting and canvassing and electioneering is done from the centre via the media.

Well I don't see how any other left wing party will fare any different if they want to be in a position to implement their ideas? Serious question I've asked a number of times as people call for a new left wing party, but wouldn't they still face the same pressures linked to electability?

 

[Demosthenes]

Compare your argument you make above to the ones people were putting around 1997 about Blair, he'll put sensible sounding policies that will attempt to hoover up the soft right but once in power he'll move the overall economic picture leftwards. Well, he didn't. He carried on with pretty much exactly the same policies as the previous tory govt. Exactly as Cameron will do. Because there's no need to do anything else. Both parties have rthe same agenda, the pursuit of business interests - they both react exactly the same way. Partly because they're constrained by global pressures but alos partly because they both genuinely now believe the exact same things.

There's no real difference between right and left in major governing parties full stop except for a few very limited local/regional/city examples in europe. Every govt is following the neo-liberal agenda as far as it can in some mad rush to the bottom - which isn't to say that they have to, they just are all largely in agreement that they should be acting like this. It's why a few desperate leftits are putting their hopes in the EU, despite this too being an explicitly neo-liberla construction.

I mainly agree. But what you say above doesn't really explain why every government is following the neo-liberal agenda, or why they're all in agreement.

I mean do you think they do it because they really think it's a good idea? Or because they think they've got no choice? Or because they're being bribed?

If there are good reasons for thinking that the neo-liberal agenda is not good for most people, it's odd that all governments and most parties are in agreement.

What persuades them?

 

[butchersapron]

Well no actually I was referring to the social chapter of the EU, not the Charter on Human Rights. But do you know why they opted out of the charter? Do you think its because they didn't want to sign up to it because they are so pro-business? Or do you think it was because every right-wing newspaper and business group said that the legislation was dictatorship by Brussels and that it's be "job destroying". It would not have gone down well with the voters (who ironically stand to benefit from the charter)

You need to always think about how our political system works - the aim above all else is to win votes. That's why I think Labour has moved to the right, out of fear of losing votes, rather than being ideologically pro-business (how do you explain Labour backbenchers or all their members outside the cabinet being fairly left wing still?) If Labour introduces a policy that businesses say will wreck the economy, then that's gonna scare any party in the UK system that wants to win votes...

It doesn't matter. You said the tories woulld seek to opt out of EU employment legislation hence they're be worse then labour. Only labour has also already tried to opt of of EU employment legislation.

They argued for an opt out because they don't want the legislation to apply to UK businesses and workers. I think you're stuck in the far off distant past if you don't think labour aren't today ideologically pro-business.

 

[doddles]

I mean do you think they do it...because they're being bribed?

Pretty much, yes. And increasingly so. Bribed by business and special interest donors, and bribed by themselves in the form of outrageous salaries and expenses. Money and power, but that's pretty much always been the case. It's just become a lot more acceptable in the last 20 years for some reason.

 

[doddles]

It's hard to have the debate because some of us seem to talking from within different paradigms (and i don't mean doddle here)

I've been itching for a good political debate ever since leaving Madison and its excellent Isthmus Forum

 

[CyberRose]

It doesn't matter. You said the tories woulld seek to opt out of EU employment legislation hence they're be worse then labour. Only labour has also already tried to opt of of EU employment legislation

That was new legislation, not current legislation - that is what the Tories have said they will opt out of (working hours, holidays, maternity leave, etc). Also, they didn't want to sign up to the Charter for political reasons (as explained above, and duly ignored by yourself) not for ideological reasons

They argued for an opt out because they don't want the legislation to apply to UK businesses and workers. I think you're stuck in the far off distant past if you don't think labour aren't today ideologically pro-business.

I think in recent years they have been pro-business, but there's a big difference between whether they actually wanted to be like that, or whether they felt they had to be like that

 

[weltweit]

"Pro business" does not have to be "anti working class".

We need a vibrant business sector in order to provide jobs.

I don't think there has been any hint from the tories that they would undo the minimum wage for example.

 

[Hocus Eye.]

Well I don't see how any other left wing party will fare any different if they want to be in a position to implement their ideas? Serious question I've asked a number of times as people call for a new left wing party, but wouldn't they still face the same pressures linked to electability?

The issue of 'electability' is a problem created by Labour itself. In the days before Thatcher and monetarism the Labour party did not just try to get votes by adapting policies from outside. It had its own ideology and put forward that ideology to the electorate between elections. Its aim was to win people to that ideology. The ideology was a form of mild Socialism as epitomised by the Welfare State, set up by the Labour party after the war. They were successful in producing in the mind of the nation a support for these ideas. The conservatives when they were returned to power did not scrap the popular welfare state provisions but continued with them. Issues like the number of houses to be built were raised at elections with both parties vying for public support.

Labour failed to create a sustained appetite for its ideology by not keeping up the necessary propaganda. By the late 1980s the party has adopted a 'me too' approach by becoming a follower of ideas - those of Thatcher et al instead of being a leader of its own ideology. This is where the weasel word 'electable' comes in. They didn't lose the battle of ideas, they walked away from the fight. It is not surprising so few people have socialist ideas today. They have not heard about them because the people who should have been pushing them forward failed to do so.

 

[butchersapron]

And the idea that the Tories and Labour are the same is not true either, when one looks at any number if relevant indicators. e.g., comparing Thatcher to Major to Blair:

http://blog.ctrlbreak.co.uk/wp-content/ifsincomes2.gif

Interestingly, that UK graph paints a very similar picture to this table, comparing Clinton to Bush:

http://www.epi.org/webfeatures/econindicators/income_20080826_table2_600.gif

There *is* a lesser of two evils.

Ah, but it's the gini co-efficient you need to be looking at, the UK graph there only represents income, which is a tiny fraction of 'wealth' for the richer but pretty much everything for the poorest. (There's masses of info on that very useful blog those graphs you provide come from -ta for that). And that doesn't really indciate much difference.

 

[doddles]

Ah, but it's the gini co-efficient you need to be looking at

Then we get into questions of what's better:

1) person A gets £5/hour and person B gets £100/hour
2) person A gets £7/hour and person B gets £5000/hour and owns a chateau in France

There are different ways to judge this:
a) the second is best because both people, even the poor one, have more
b) the first is best because there is less inequality
c) the second is best because "I'm Rich!"

Many of us would try to be rational agree with a). But a lot of recent research has shown that the economic rationalists are wrong, and most people would actually choose b). Whatever you might think, the second scenario is likely to lead to huge problems of social division - not good for society in the long run.

Of course many of us believe it should be possible to reduce social inequality *and* increase wealth at the bottom of the wealth ladder.

 

[CyberRose]

The issue of 'electability' is a problem created by Labour itself...The conservatives when they were returned to power did not scrap the popular welfare state provisions but continued with them. Issues like the number of houses to be built were raised at elections with both parties vying for public support.

But doesn't this suggest that popularity (or, to use the "weasel word", electability) is a problem inherent in our political system, rather than a specific party. The NHS is completely opposed to the ideology of the Conservatives, but they will never abandon it because of the effect it will have on votes, and therefore the ability to win elections. There are left wing and right wing policies that the public will either support or oppose, and I think that is why any party that enters into our political system will be drawn to the centre ground.

Labour failed to create a sustained appetite for its ideology by not keeping up the necessary propaganda. By the late 1980s the party has adopted a 'me too' approach by becoming a follower of ideas - those of Thatcher et al instead of being a leader of its own ideology. This is where the weasel word 'electable' comes in. They didn't lose the battle of ideas, they walked away from the fight. It is not surprising so few people have socialist ideas today. They have not heard about them because the people who should have been pushing them forward failed to do so.

Well if I assume for a minute this is true, why do you think it is that left wing people turn right?

 

[brasicritique]

you see the trouble is to mony people just think utter distruction in terms of the election i think we are about to witness the utter destruction of the heartland vote and relationship with the labour party and the left in general and once the heartland leaves it is never comig back altho a lot of posters like to portray these people as chavs and idiots etc once people walk they walk and they do not come back the toynbees of these boards can come up with all the arguements they want but the link between policy and the heart lands is gone - we are living in a mini america with rep v demcrat partys all supporting a neo con agenda while the radical disappered up there own socail elitist arses which has allowed the far righ tto now come across as left wing
the chickens are going to come home to roost and it is not going to be nice and i cannot see a way out of it

 

[danny la rouge]

Because they support business interests naturally out of their ideology

As, now, do Labour.

Labour are not the party of the working class anymore, and haven't been for many years. Yes, there are still members who don't know where else to go, who are left-ish leaning. But those people have no sway on the party ideology, ethos, or policy. They can get all angsty at conference, but that doesn't change what the leadership ends up doing. The mainstream of the Labour Party does not see it as the party of working class representation, which is what it was set up to be. It would be more accurate now to call it Capital.

It isn't a cloak of convenience to get them into power, which would be thrown off once their hands were on the tiller: it really is what they believe. Brown as much as Blair.

 

[Steve Booth]

Think globally act locally

i think we are about to witness the utter destruction of the heartland vote and relationship with the labour party and the left in general and once the heartland leaves it is never comig back altho a lot of posters like to portray these people as chavs and idiots etc once people walk they walk and they do not come back the toynbees of these boards can come up with all the arguements they want but the link between policy and the heart lands is gone -

.....

the chickens are going to come home to roost and it is not going to be nice and i cannot see a way out of it

The Labour Party is in a similar position now to the Liberal Party after the First World War. Brasicritiuque is right, the heartlands will walk away and they are not coming back. There are other factors which are altering the balance of political structures.

The comment by Hocus Eye about the Socialists not keeping up the propaganda and making the arguments is also correct. I think to some extent in the 1980s there was a robust campaign of counter-propaganda against the Left, especially in the Murdoch media. The Left also made some wrong decisions which seriously damaged them.

Part of the problem is the undemocratic First Past the Post electoral system, and until this defect is addressed so that the votes cast actually relate to the seats granted in Parliament, we are perhaps perpetually doomed to this flip-flop between Tweedledumb and Tweedledumber.

For the left, the way out of the quagmire begins in small, local left wing parties making the case and standing in Council elections, gradually building up their power base in practical politics at the grass roots level. You need to position yourselves to make the transition up to national politics when the flip-flop paradigm eventually collapses.

Following pressure from the SNP, Gordon Brown just announced a concession about Scotland and taxation, which only a year ago he was denying the need for. In Scotland, the SNP are now a serious political party. I have an article from the 1930s Picture Post magazine about the Scottish Nationalists, reporting on them as a kind of romantic idealistic thing. Even quite recently, they were being dismissed. Eventually politics can change, BUT you have to keep on plugging away at things for a long long time.

 

[trevhagl]

As, now, do Labour.

Labour are not the party of the working class anymore, and haven't been for many years. Yes, there are still members who don't know where else to go, who are left-ish leaning. But those people have no sway on the party ideology, ethos, or policy. They can get all angsty at conference, but that doesn't change what the leadership ends up doing. The mainstream of the Labour Party does not see it as the party of working class representation, which is what it was set up to be. It would be more accurate now to call it Capital.

It isn't a cloak of convenience to get them into power, which would be thrown off once their hands were on the tiller: it really is what they believe. Brown as much as Blair.

Hang on a minute you disagree with all my posts yet what you said there was right, so where are YOU coming from?

 

[danny la rouge]

Hang on a minute you disagree with all my posts yet what you said there was right, so where are YOU coming from?

On this thread, or in general?

In general, I have disagreed with you where I think you're wrong: that reading a tabloid makes you a bad or stupid person; that Diana's death was not an accident; that David Icke was in any meaningful way right; that the Bildeburg meetings are anything other than meetings of rich and powerful people, best described as somewhere between a gentlemen's club and WEF.

Where am I coming from? I am an anarchist communist.

 

[Wolveryeti]

Then we get into questions of what's better:

1) person A gets £5/hour and person B gets £100/hour
2) person A gets £7/hour and person B gets £5000/hour and owns a chateau in France

There are different ways to judge this:
a) the second is best because both people, even the poor one, have more
b) the first is best because there is less inequality
c) the second is best because "I'm Rich!"

Many of us would try to be rational agree with a). But a lot of recent research has shown that the economic rationalists are wrong, and most people would actually choose b). Whatever you might think, the second scenario is likely to lead to huge problems of social division - not good for society in the long run.

There is an efficiency argument against inequality from an economic perspective that states that a more financially homogenous world would benefit more from process innovation and economies of purchase and scale (because people on similar incomes are more likely to consume similar things). Where such swathes of man-hours are tied up producing luxury goods for the ultra rich (which increasingly hark back to medieval methods (handcrafting, organic etc) both progress and efficiency suffer.

 

[Joe Reilly]

same, joining the Greens as soon as i find out if i'm still technically an LP member

Leaving one middle class party for another - that has just got to be the answer.