Labours Crewe Campaign

[KeyboardJockey]

Callaghan did he double spending on health and education? Old Labour never got re-elected for a reason. The reason is they let down the people who had faith in them....

I meant to say prior to Callaghan. I remember the cuts back then. People didn't think it could get any worse and voted in the Thatchermonster.

 

[Cobbles]

I don't think people associate all of those things with the term 'Old Labour' but social housing, public services under public ownership, progressive taxation, still have a certain resonance amongst the majority of people.

Apart from the silent (up to the Crewe result) majority who actually have to pay for such misaligned bollox.........

 

[glenquagmire]

The point of progressive taxation is that it isn't the majority who have to pay. Dur.

 

[Fruitloop]

Fuck what they've been spending, the question is where are the results? Spending is easy, and crikey they have done a lot of it, much of it with funds borrowed on distinctly unfavourable terms.

 

[poster342002]

Fuck what they've been spending, the question is where are the results? Spending is easy, and crikey they have done a lot of it, much of it with funds borrowed on distinctly unfavourable terms.

I think that's what's pissing people off: all that taxation and yet nothing to show for it apart from stats saying how wonderful everything now is.

 

[Fruitloop]

And House of Lords reform, what a fucking joke. It's now the quango house of politicians' mates - given the choice I'd rather have the aristos who were at least a social counter-balance, rather than being drawn from the exact same social elites as the commons.

Electoral reform has been one of the more notable betrayals and missed opportunities of this labour administration.

 

[agricola]

And House of Lords reform, what a fucking joke. It's now the quango house of politicians' mates - given the choice I'd rather have the aristos who were at least a social counter-balance, rather than being drawn from the exact same social elites as the commons.

Electoral reform has been one of the more notable betrayals and missed opportunities of this labour administration.

Actually, I disagree. PR in any form that has been proposed is much worse than the current system, because it entrenches the party system to a far greater extent than it currently is, and removes a great deal of power from the electorate to kick unpopular politicians out of office - witness Portillo, for example. Its difficult to think of one problem within Parliament that is not in some way caused by, or at least made worse by, party politics - and to hand over democracy to that bunch of liars would be an utter disaster.

Those electoral reforms that they have brought about - postal voting, for instance - have been huge failures, so to trust this lot with implementing a PR system and expecting them not to twist it to their own advantage is a forlorn hope (as is trusting any party to bring it about).

As for the Lords, yes it has been a dumping ground for failed politicians / bribed politicians / people who have paid money to the Labour Party recently, but the quality of debate and the sense/quality of its decisions have been miles better than that of the Commons, probably since before 1997.

 

[Das Uberdog]

Not only - PR also makes it impossible for a government to be elected to pursue any kind of radical agenda. Would Labour have been able to carry out all the reforms it did in the 1950s were it a minority coalition government? Most definitely not (you might argue that'd be a good thing)... FPtP gives a new government a recognisable mandate for change - PR locks government to the centre ground forever.

 

[Fruitloop]

Actually, I disagree. PR in any form that has been proposed is much worse than the current system, because it entrenches the party system to a far greater extent than it currently is, and removes a great deal of power from the electorate to kick unpopular politicians out of office - witness Portillo, for example. Its difficult to think of one problem within Parliament that is not in some way caused by, or at least made worse by, party politics - and to hand over democracy to that bunch of liars would be an utter disaster.

Those electoral reforms that they have brought about - postal voting, for instance - have been huge failures, so to trust this lot with implementing a PR system and expecting them not to twist it to their own advantage is a forlorn hope (as is trusting any party to bring it about).

As for the Lords, yes it has been a dumping ground for failed politicians / bribed politicians / people who have paid money to the Labour Party recently, but the quality of debate and the sense/quality of its decisions have been miles better than that of the Commons, probably since before 1997.

I agree with a lot of this - this incumbents are such a bunch of crooks that they could stuff anything up. It was more of a fond hope at the beginning of their time in office that they might implement some kind of PR and end the pointless flip-flopping between two near-identical parties.

 

[poster342002]

Not only - PR also makes it impossible for a government to be elected to pursue any kind of radical agenda. Would Labour have been able to carry out all the reforms it did in the 1950s were it a minority coalition government? Most definitely not

Many other post-WW2 european govts managed to enact similar reforms aroudn that time, despite having PR/minorty coalitions. The reforms were driven by the need of capitalism at the time, so would have gone through in some form whoever was in office.

 

[Fruitloop]

Not only - PR also makes it impossible for a government to be elected to pursue any kind of radical agenda. Would Labour have been able to carry out all the reforms it did in the 1950s were it a minority coalition government? Most definitely not (you might argue that'd be a good thing)... FPtP gives a new government a recognisable mandate for change - PR locks government to the centre ground forever.

Well, I'm NZer so have a slightly different perspective. In NZ there is no second chamber so it was possible for previous right-wing governments to privatise and sell-off almost unimpeded, at a much faster rate than was experienced here under Thatcher or Blair. So from that perspective a less clear-cut mandate was fairly desirable.

The main problem with FPtP here is that the system seems to inevitably tend towards a two-party flip-flop, which if anything increases the role of party politics in every decision; only the opinions of a party that might at some point hold power matter, and only the two major parties have any chance of that. It might be that it doesn't have to work like that, but it's pretty tricky to think of any counter-examples.

There is a huge 'democratic deficit' at the moment in the UK, to the point where even eilte interests are becoming worried about a 'crisis of legitimacy' - the recent Power Report was pretty damning on the topic, and pretty much many of the most common objections in finding that people were not in any way withdrawing from public life, public action and public organisations like pressure groups and charities, rather that it's specifically parliementary politics that is viewed as being a waste of time. That Labour have done nothing about this and if the statistics are to be believed have made it worse is dissappointing, but, as has been pointed out, all of a piece with their other failures.

 

[tbaldwin]

I think that's what's pissing people off: all that taxation and yet nothing to show for it apart from stats saying how wonderful everything now is.

Personally i think ive benefited from increased spending. More teachers aint such a bad thing even if my kids disagree...Increased spending on health meant loads more nurses and new equipment and lives being saved thanks to more treatments being available...Meant i got a stem cell transplant which has kept me alive for a little bit longer to join the war against the cod left....

 

[agricola]

Well, I'm NZer so have a slightly different perspective. In NZ there is no second chamber so it was possible for previous right-wing governments to privatise and sell-off almost unimpeded, at a much faster rate than was experienced here under Thatcher or Blair. So from that perspective a less clear-cut mandate was fairly desirable.

The main problem with FPtP here is that the system seems to inevitably tend towards a two-party flip-flop, which if anything increases the role of party politics in every decision; only the opinions of a party that might at some point hold power matter, and only the two major parties have any chance of that. It might be that it doesn't have to work like that, but it's pretty tricky to think of any counter-examples.

There is a huge 'democratic deficit' at the moment in the UK, to the point where even eilte interests are becoming worried about a 'crisis of legitimacy' - the recent Power Report was pretty damning on the topic, and pretty much many of the most common objections in finding that people were not in any way withdrawing from public life, public action and public organisations like pressure groups and charities, rather that it's specifically parliementary politics that is viewed as being a waste of time. That Labour have done nothing about this and if the statistics are to be believed have made it worse is dissappointing, but, as has been pointed out, all of a piece with their other failures.

The "two-party" system could be solved by banning whipping (the political kind) and other forms of inducing MPs to vote (central lists being the most obvious) in a certain way - all three main parties still contain (though this is much less than it was pre-1997) a reasonably broad spectrum of opinions and standpoints on various issues (something that tends to come out whenever there is a free vote). We have to get to the point where MPs are only beholden to their constituents, otherwise we have such farce as the recent Post Office Closures programme, where nearly every MP was publicly against it (especially in their own constituency) but a majority were whipped into voting for it.

It would be difficult, but given that the central organizations of both Parties are under severe financial pressure (the Tories will be if Ashcroft ever pulls the plug), it is not impossible.

Of course, full disclosure of everything an MP earns and claims for (claims to be evidenced by reciepts and random checks) is long overdue.

 

[Fruitloop]

Yep, agree with all of that.

 

[Haller]

Many other post-WW2 european govts managed to enact similar reforms aroudn that time, despite having PR/minorty coalitions. The reforms were driven by the need of capitalism at the time, so would have gone through in some form whoever was in office.

Bit difficult to tell quite what reforms are in question; the 1950s were dominated by a Conservative government, so presumably what's actually meant is the 1940s or 1960s.

So, to hedge my bets, what was capitalism's need for national parks in the '40s? Or for anti-racism legislation in the 1960s?

 

[Jeff Robinson]

A rare moment of honesty