The problem is new labour didnt win the centre ground by good politics. They won it by abandoning their normal constituents and just hoping they wouldnt notice and allowed the hard right to drag the “centre” so far right that even mildly left wing policies are now seen as hard left.
There was a reason Blair left when he did. He wouldnt have won again.
A large amount of the disillusionment with politics which is plaguing us today is down to Blair and his “third way”.
I've never agreed with that.
in the 90s Labour saw that the UK had changed, people no longer worked for a single employer their whole life - they didn't care about workers 'rights' via unionisation or collective bargaining - they voted with their feet. The best way to ensure working people had good terms with their employer was to have a high level of employment and a base level of fundamental rights to avoid exploitation, including a legally enforced minimum wage. During this era employers competed for good staff by offering not only decent salaries but packages which meant even the entry level shelf stackers of the world got a decent pension, more than the legal minimum of holidays and others non-taxed 'benefits'.
The government of the day (it was never just the Tony Blair show, unlike some other politicians he was willing and able to work with followers of different dogmas) forgot about Left v Right, Labour v Tories or all that bullshit that had dragged the UK down and broken Governments since Commoners got the vote.
By doing so the UK enjoyed the longest period of continued growth in it's history, which allowed us to have better funded public services than ever before without bankrupting the country, we had more people going to university than ever before, less child poverty than ever before, less homelessness than ever before.
No Blair wasn't perfect, he started very well but became increasingly worse. The war in Iraq was easily his worst 'crime' and he should have resigned because of it, in the end he hung on too long for the sake of his own Ego, Brown was never as easy to like and every day Blair stayed was one less day Brown had to establish himself. Ultimately though it was the Great Recession what did for New Labour, they built themselves (and Brown especially) on Economic acumen. Brown didn't cause The Great Recession, but he's probably guilty of allowing our Housing Market to bubble which made it worse for us. He didn't sell all the gold at the wrong time either, that's a usual Old-Labour / Tory slur, he just didn't have the foresight to see 9/11 coming, no one did. No party, however much they're at fault or indeed just how brilliantly they handled it (honestly, Brown was one of the few heroes of the Banking Crisis and lead the rest of the world in the early days) was going to survive that.
No, they sun didn't shine every day and not every former mining / factory town was suddenly transformed into a economic nirvana - but fundamentally they did was good a Labour government should do, they gave the most opportunities to the most amount of people they could and protected and supported the most amount of people they could who couldn't do for themselves.
Labour aint all power to the people.
More pressingly, Labour in its current iteration can’t be trusted with anything as serious as power. Corbyn is an unreconstructed hard-leftie; his support for Maduro isn’t of itself a problem, but it lends weight to the party’s complete absence of understanding of how government works in a capitalist society. One cannot simply renationalise entire swathes of the economy without some magical moneybox. And the ongoing anti-Semitism scandal* demonstrates that as people, the Labour party are no less objectionable than the Tories in their sense of entitlement and casual treatment of people as less than people.
Well you seem to have swallowed the Tory press campaign hook, line, sinker and a small dinghy. None of these reasons to distrust Labour stand up to scrutiny, which is not your fault but it does illustrate that people vote for some misguided motives.
I don’t accept that it’s an impossible question to answer as it was worded in order to gauge what someone’s opinion might be.
I gave you my opinion.
You ignored it and said I didn't answer your question! 🙂
My point it that people generally vote in their own self interest.
I answered that as well. 🙂
Not everyone who votes Labour does so out of self interest.
Some people do it because it's the best thing for society as a whole.
One cannot simply renationalise entire swathes of the economy without some magical moneybox.
What about buying votes?
We need to move away from the party system and just deal with things on a issue by issue basis.
I don't think it is necessary to do away with the party system, just do away with the 'string leader' version. MPs used to be much freer and more responsible to the voter and less to cental office than they are now.
None of these reasons to distrust Labour stand up to scrutiny,
What, even the anti-semitism?
ETA: Hang on, don't answer yet, I need to go and get some popcorn...
The Tory 'self reliance' thing is based in the mindset of classic conservatives, who believe the old ways are the best. Same thinking that brought you that exit thing. It was true that when families were large, people were born, lived and died within a 3 mile area. They were best positioned to help each other. People don't live like that anymore though.
The current Tories do seem to be run by classic conservatives at the moment, who are massively in favour of self-reliance, except that they are totally blinkered as to their own non self reliance
The unpopularity of the Lib Dems is largely down to the fact that they pushed for PR from the get-go. That put people off, I think. Every place that uses the first past the post Westminster system that has had a referendum has rejected it. Despite it's obvious advantages.
The other way that has worked to allow smaller parties to become viable alternatives, which seems desperately needed, is a per vote subsidy. Get over a threshold of the popkuar vote in a given riding, you get a set amount per vote. That would give genuine alternative parties the money they need to become viable.
The things I hear the most from people who do are small government/self reliance (verging into tax is theft and all that) and governments/nanny state telling people what to do (mostly rule one stuff like don't be racist, don't call disabled people offensive names) moving into PC Gawn Mad - they only have womem footballers on the BBC cause they have too stuff. Basically small government to protect the old white men of the world and reinforce their power.
Taking a step back you can see why people are fearful of social mobility and equality as it will increase to competition for them and their kids by including the rest of the population.
There is a space in the middle where you can leave some of that dogma aside, protect the people and incentive business but it's a hard balancing act.
The other big problem is long reigns by one party mean in the end it needs putting out of it's misery, the last Labour government had run it's course, despite what some would say limping along in minority would have killed them more. They had reached the entitled to rule stage, same as the tories did in the 90's it's a deficit of the 2 party system that it results in a big swing when it happens.
I'm not a massive fan of all the Labour policies but a lot is getting lost in the shouting, re nationalising the railways for instance, we already pay a huge amount to Network Rail, each contract that ends just needs to be not renewed and run by the relevant department. Then the tories will have something to sell off in 30 years time.
unlike some other politicians he was willing and able to work with followers of different dogmas
From what I have read he really wasnt. He was forced to work with people of different dogmas (eg Brown) but he wasnt overly fond of the idea (Prescott by all accounts earned his money as deputy by keeping things under control) and the entire third way had a habit of trying to close down debates. Its unclear where the momentum for many of the policies came from. Blair was very fond of the private sector is best dogma and has hamstrung public services with crippling long term contracts.
The lack of control of the housing market is something which still cripples us today with the tories continuing the habit of throwing money at it to keep it going ever upwards.
They left a massive section of the population feeling unrepresented since, correctly, they thought Blair was more concerned about swing voters and the city and press barons than them. Which in turn gave UKIP and co the ability to dive in and push dream politics to them.
They failed to deal with the changing economy beyond some laws with dubious usability which failed to deal with the developing gig economy. He left the unions in a mostly crippled state where they couldnt respond effectively to those circumstances.
As for the crash. New Labour fetishisation of the banking sector and buying into the regulation is bad really didnt help us there.
The unpopularity of the Lib Dems is largely down to the fact that they pushed for PR from the get-go
In many cases the unpopularity comes from the fact is they let Cameron outplay them and only offer the miserable compromise of AV.
In many cases the unpopularity comes from the fact is they let Cameron outplay them and only offer the miserable compromise of AV.
Well, yes, they did forget the cardinal rule of don't be the smaller partner in a coalition.
I was thinking more of their failure to catch on prior to Clegg's breakthrough in that election.
A further reason the UK is in such a state is that for the last 30 years, people have voted for tax cuts rather than investment in infrastructure and services - funded by the privatisation of state-owned assets and the abject failure of our Government to effectively manage privatised contractors. I've despaired at times at the incompetence of civil servants who 'manage' those contracts - but they're given limited authority / freedoms and consequently make bad business decisions to merely get 'on contract' with limited funding to suit political expediency rather than good business sense - sometimes unwittingly finding that they still hold the liability for when things go wrong. On the other side, you have unrealistic proposals like expecting privatised companies to fund the pension liabilities for ex-government employees within short-term contracts. We also have city investors saying that they no longer want to invest in businesses involved in government contracts as they're such a crock.
Clegg’s breakthrough in that election.
There was no LibDem electoral "breakthrough" under Nick Clegg.
In the 2010 general election the LibDem vote increased by a mere 1%, they actually lost 5 seats. That's dispite the fact that both Labour and the Tories had been widely discredited.
The only significant electoral breakthrough the LibDems have experienced in recent times ocurrred when Charles Kennedy was leader, he offered a relatively left-wing alternative to New Labour.
Nick Clegg swung the LibDems dramatically to the right and ultimately proved to be a disaster for them.
There was no LibDem electoral “breakthrough” under Nick Clegg.
It was very close though in the middle of the leader debates he shock the whole thing up and was polling way above what was expected. It changed how the other 2 dealt with them.
What this thread is exposing is how hard it is to sort the current issues into left and right.
What this thread is exposing is how hard it is to sort the current issues into left and right.
But issues can't be sorted into left and right, or is that what you meant?
even the anti-semitism?
Particularly the anti-Semitism, e.g. read some background here:
https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/tom-bower-book-dangerous-hero-jeremy-corbyn-labour-leader-truth
But issues can’t be sorted into left and right, or is that what you meant?
Big and currents, globalisation, the environment, brexit, immigration etc.
Labour do have some anti semitic issues, they also have some pro Palestine ones, tories have Islamic issues. Reflection of our current country.
There was no LibDem electoral “breakthrough” under Nick Clegg.
They hadn't even made it to second party before that. Being part of a coalition government on whose support the government depended was a breakthrough for them.
I don't think Nick Clegg swung them to the right, except he got done over by his far more experienced and right leaning coalition partners who wooed him, promised him the world and made off the next morning with his wallet. That was also what caused the subsequent loss of support.
In hindsight, he probably should have listened more closely to Gordon Brown's overtures.
I worked for many years on election duties, sometimes in the polling booths. What actually is depressing is when families come in and junior (or the wife) just shouts across "Dad, who do I vote for?". No thought, nor understanding.
Cheers Malvern Rider that was an interesting little read 🙂
Was in a pretentious Cheshire country pub this evening. The hot topics were fears of their children watching internet porn/dark web and how outrageously inconvenient it had become to get into the village, CoOp and Waitrose, where subtle but intentionally confusing traffic calming has been introduced.
Just about sums it up. Range Rover priority lanes and parking, internet censorship because of the children, surveillance of said children, pothole busting and you've got most of bases covered!
cromolyolly
Member
They hadn’t even made it to second party before that. Being part of a coalition government on whose support the government depended was a breakthrough for them.
A breakthrough yes, but not an electoral one- they had a totally unexceptional, actually slightly below par election, it just so happened that other parties put them in a position where their reduced of MPs was important.
It seems to have totally entered the british election mythology though. I mean, I was genuinely surprised when I checked the numbers myself at the start of the coalition.
Being part of a coalition government on whose support the government depended was a breakthrough for them.
OK, fair enough, but the "breakthrough" was solely dependent on the Tories not doing very well.
Losing 5 seats in the 2010 general election was not a good result for the LibDems.
Under Charles Kennedy the LibDems were the only credible alternative to the neo-liberalism espoused by both the Tories and New Labour. In constrast under Nick Clegg's leadership the LibDems turned up late to the party embracing neo-liberalism, ironically, just when the shit hit the fan, ie, the international credit crisis.
Nick Clegg's betrayal of millions of LibDem voters had completely predictable consequences. As the ensuing catastrophic collapse in LibDem support proved.
A breakthrough yes, but not an electoral one
Not in the sense that they had huge numbers of votes, no but in the sense that they came out of an election as a party of real influence, yes.
It seems to have totally entered the british election mythology though. I mean, I was genuinely surprised when I checked the numbers myself at the start of the coalition.
Well, yeah, all of a sudden they had a platform, they got attention, the got to put their manifesto on the national stage. They went from a fringe party that was always banging on about PR and had John Cheese make a promo for them to a 'real' party, overnight. That's huge. As was the implosion.
OK, fair enough, but the “breakthrough” was solely dependent on the Tories not doing very well.
That's often how smaller parties get there.
ms.
Under Charles Kennedy the LibDems were the only credible alternative to the neo-liberalism
So true. He couldn't get any tractiom with a broader audience though - see above.
Clegg got the attention the lib Dems needed to amke them a 'proper' party. He did get shafted by the global crisis, which oddly never got blamed on the parties that actually caused it..
I really don't believe he betrayed lib dem voters. I think he misplayed the coalition, putting large demands in early, which the tories accepted, told him to send an invoice and they'd write a cheque, but then they were able to fob him off long enough that he never got the pro quo and didn't have the power to force it. I really think it was a case of the lib Dems having no politically experienced operators. The coalition ended up betraying the lib dem voters and clegg carried the can for it.
As you go up salary brackets then yes it becomes more in your self interest to vote Tory.
Also Tory policy tends to favour business growth which means the main man/women gets more money. However what it does do though is help create more jobs.
Recently parties are a mess. Comrade Corbyn doesn’t have the balls to say what he stands for, conservatives clearly can’t organise a piss up in a brewery, so you may as well vote for self interest.
I vote for the local candidate I believe can win with the policy’s I favour with a net to catch those less fortunate , it’s all a balancing act,
I live in a predominantly labour area (m62 belt) and I hate the fact that labour can win the vote by just turning up, what have labour done for my local borough, pretty much ruined it over the last 15 years, whilst blaming the Tories 100% for austerity. Bad decision after bad decision doesn’t help the austerity.
Corbyn and his money trees would incentivise a minority to do **** all..
We make our own life choices through education and working smarter, government policy doesn’t necessarily impact me, a strong economy does.
But I have a social conscious I pay tax and with no kids I’m more than happy my tax/ni/vat is spent on education and welfare.
If you work on minimum wage with no aspirations then you will struggle in life.
Corbyn and his money trees would incentivise a minority to do **** all
Do you really believe that?
We are in a dire situation where those at the bottom currently have nowhere good to go. There's certainly no incentive in shite wages and expensive living costs.
And don't kid yourself there isn't a magic money tree. It's called MMT (modern monetary theory - see Stephanie Kelton advising for Bernie Sanders - she's taking everyone to task on it) - Governments use it for finding cash all the time especially for defence. It's already in play. The trick is to put some of that money to good use for all.
Corbyn and Labour may not have dared jump on the back of MMT but at the very least they're going to bring some redistribution back to the fold.
That is better for everyone. You bring the bottom part of society upwards and crime, jobs and communities all benefit.
We make our own life choices through education and working smarter, government policy doesn’t necessarily impact me, a strong economy does.
You're not seeing the big picture.
There is no 'smarter' - that is called a race to the bottom.
Government policy impacts you directly because the economy is under their control. And we don't have a strong economy - it's propped up by a cheap workforce living on debt and low interest rates. It's not strong at all.
And then you have to say what about everyone apart from you? How do they all work smarter if they have a terrible set of cards to start with.
Your thinking is outdated. By at least 30 years.
Also Tory policy tends to favour business growth which means the main man/women gets more money. However what it does do though is help create more jobs
It's creating poor quality low paid jobs where you have no spending power.
You have to borrow to survive.
That will not go on, and is not growth.
Well, yes, they did forget the cardinal rule of don’t be the smaller partner in a coalition.
No, sorry but that is simply letting them off the hook. It was their job to say these are our immovable policies without which we cant go into coalition. They failed to set the terms to ensure that happened.
I don’t think Nick Clegg swung them to the right,
Clegg was/is a member of the orange book grouping which is the more right wing side of the lib dems. It wasnt him alone (most of those who ended up in government were from that side of the party) but he certainly contributed.
MMT is nationlist isolationist smoke and and mirrors.
It’s creating poor quality low paid jobs where you have no spending power.
They were singing the same 'highest working population ever' nonsense again yesterday
Do you know what the definition of 'in employment' is? Under Universal Credit, if you've worked one hour over a two-week period then you're classed as working.
We've seen an explosion in zero hours contracts, part-time, insecure work and bogus self-employment, none of which will actually pay you enough to live even the most rudimentary existence. Hence the huge increase in the number of children living in poverty. Most of the people using food banks are the working poor who can't even afford to eat
Do this lot look like they're even prepared to acknowledge these people exist, never mind do anything to actually help them?
Government policy hasn't been about creating long-term growth but winning votes in the next 5-year election cycle - they make gestures towards long-term spending, a minister makes some 'bold' announcement and then a year later the whole programme gets cancelled and the money switched to some fresh initiative. The UK has a chronic productivity issue - over-reliance on low-skill / low paid jobs in sectors like retail and under-investment in technology in comparison to our peers. Sectors like retail that survive because of in-work tax benefits to employees - tax payers effectively subsidising businesses. The problem is those business pay dividends to investors such as pension funds, so the incentive is to retain the status quo.
So true. He couldn’t get any tractiom with a broader audience though – see above.
Clegg got the attention the lib Dems needed to amke them a ‘proper’ party.
I don't know why you want to give Clegg so much credit and Kennedy so little.
Until Charles Kennedy became leader the LibDems had been losing support in every general election since its foundation. Then under Kennedy's leadership support for the LibDems increased by almost a third.
Contrast that with Nick Clegg who the best he ever managed was a derisory 1% increase in LibDem support, at a time when neither the Tories or Labour had anything to offer. And then went to lose two thirds of LibDem support, their worst ever result.
To answer my own question I guess it's to support the narrative that parties should aim for the mythical "centre ground". Facts such as the disastrous consequences for the LibDems, or the 10% increase for Labour under under Corbyn, the greastest increase in Labour vote since 1945, are simply ingnored.
As a higher earner I can honestly say paying more tax doesn't bother me so long as that money is used to the net benefit of everyone. Has been the case up here for a year or so now and I've not seen any real drop in my standard of living.
There also seems to be conflation of libertarianism/authoritarianism as exclusive left/right ideologies. Now SNP are hardly the communist party but I would describe them as left, certainly compared to what we've had for the past near decade. They are authoritarian though, preferring to enact legislation (more so when populism dictates) over addressing the root causes. Mostly for better but sometimes for the worse.
We’ve seen an explosion in zero hours contracts
There's nothing wrong with zero hour contracts, those who are suited to them enjoy the flexibility. i.e. working mums, students etc. Some businesses are exploiting it, as with anything regardless of whoever is in government.
Income tax receipts are increasing year on year, so this whole notion that everyone in the employment figures are doing bugger all hours is total bull.
Most recent growth has been the result of immigration (which is why they don't report per capita growth). Firms have cheap credit but don't invest in production because labour is cheap but do invest in assets (hence property and equity prices etc). As immigration from Europe has faltered the system has allowed for more non-European immigration, which is sadly ironic for the Brexit voters who thought they were voting for a whiter Britain.
Paying into a welfare state is good for everyone, compare social democratic Denmark with the neo-liberal US. I see a big business opportunity for trailer parks, doss houses and gated communities in this country with food prices (and hence wages) being kept down by bleached chicken and beef on steroids.
There’s nothing wrong with zero hour contracts, those who are suited to them enjoy the flexibility. i.e. working mums, students etc. Some businesses are exploiting it, as with anything regardless of whoever is in government.
The people who are doing well on Zero Hours are the ones choose to be on them, lots of people are on them are not on them by choice and would love to have fixed or at least regular hours.
Income tax receipts are increasing year on year, so this whole notion that everyone in the employment figures are doing bugger all hours is total bull.
That is a bold claim based on one figure.
Most recent growth has been the result of immigration (which is why they don’t report per capita growth). Firms have cheap credit but don’t invest in production because labour is cheap but do invest in assets
Again not in my experience of working in automation, improvements and working alongside companies delivering automation solutions. Loads of people are investing heavily in tech and moving workers about. Again it's not that straight forward but people are investing here and have been.
Presumably Mike you're not in a low skill/low wage sector. Higher wages encourage investment and efficiency, which is why the UK productivity compares poorly across Europe. Neo-liberals are aiming for a low skill, low pay, low tax, highly unequal economy which partly explains the lack of concern over real cuts in education, and street sleepers can act as a warning to us all.
I work across just about every part of UK industry at the moment, even agriculture is pushing tech solutions for traditionally manual jobs.
Some of the projects I've worked on are all about replacing the low paid roles.
I'd vote for anyone ahead of Corbyn and his lot, and anyone to keep them out. Social conscience is one thing but the poor will be a lot poorer when the entire country is bankrupt.
I’d vote for anyone ahead of Corbyn and his lot, and anyone to keep them out. Social conscience is one thing but the poor will be a lot poorer when the entire country is bankrupt.
As someone said on another thread - we need an informed electorate for democracy to work properly. If people are just going to make stuff up it will end badly - especially now communication is so fast (e.g. see Ch4 report on Leave.UK fake films of migrants)
Have always voted Conservative but will never do again. I'm now in my 40s have plenty of money and thinking more now about my children and grandchildren and the world I want them to grow up in than my own wealth. Brexit has been the nail in the coffin and I could never again vote for the party which I blame for bringing us to this point.