[Closed] Time for a new proper left-wing political party?

Why on earth shouldn't the people have a referendum on issues that affect us all - the death penalty being a fantastic example of where the political settlement does not and has not reflected the majority public view for decades.

So you're suggesting that the majority of people in the UK support the death penalty? Care to provide some evidence of that then?

FWIW, Ken Loach would need better spokesman. He was awful on QT recently. Both he and Heseltine appeared like relics of a distant political age.

In fairness, Ken Loach is 76 and his talent lies in film making, rather than eloquent public speaking. And by contrast; I found him to be actually very successful in putting his point of view across when I heard him the other night.

self-styled libertarians rarely have concrete solutions to real-world problems. And the more evangelical of 'em are simply barking. What they do offer, however, is plenty of vague platitudes, and they tend to occupy political territory inwhich both anarchists and monied elites can feel comfortable - while the rest of us have to make do. So, no thanks.

Pretty much this really. I have a natural distrust of anyone who calls themselves a 'libertarian', as they are often simply those out for their own individual ends rather than being concerned with greater society. the use the term 'libertarianism' as if it meant 'freedom', when the truth is they usually want freedom for themselves and for others not to get in their way. Libertarianism is all well and dandy, until someone else comes along exercising their own brand of 'freedom', and threatens the status quo.

branding yourself a tory or a socialist has about as much relevance and meaning as which leg of your trousers you put on first

Nonsense. Unless you don't actually understand what the respective terms actually mean.

Society will always involve a struggle between outright dog-eat-dog pure [s]greed[/s] capitalism, and the need for people to consider all others. There will never be a perfect solution, but we could have a much better situation than the current one, hence why we need a viable Left to drag us back towards the centre, rather than creeping ever more rightwards as we are.

There is a possibility that's been put on the table many times, has been proven to work around the world, and would address many of the concerns brought up in this thread. It's called Proportional Representation.

they would - or you can start your own - that's democracy. But apparently that's not good enough for you

No, because national elections are not, and should not, be settled on single issue subjects, See SNP and the Scottish independence referendum for an example.

So you're suggesting that the majority of people in the UK support the death penalty? Care to provide some evidence of that then?

Been the case for a long time - it was even more the case when it was outlawed.

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/3802

grum - Member
That's a very inaccurate and one might even say disingenuous way of describing the stick you got.

Grum - that was "stick"? No, just stupidity combined with impertinence.

Interestingly I see that as right wing as it beefitss those of means

JY - my student son showed me an internet quiz this week that plots individuals against the 4-box quadrant shown earlier. Leaving aside the flaws in the quiz itself (questions made it difficult to support the strongly agree/disagree responses as they were badly worded), my results plotted me (very) marginally in the bottom left-hand corner ie mildly [b]left wing libertarianism[/b]!!! 😉 But actually pretty close to the cross-hairs, which is about right. Bad luck grum - back to the ball now!

edit: I am sure Ken Loach has lots of important contributions - that was not my point - I accept he is getting on a bit now, but would help to have a better spokesman to make the points.

govt should not limit your choices it should however enable them

No, Bandit, you're mistaking the parliamentary representative democracy that we have in the UK as the only form of democracy,

Troll then 🙄

Been the case for a long time - it was even more the case when it was outlawed.

Interesting. What's also interesting is that of those under 40, support is lower than amongst those over 40. And as the article suggests that support is gradually falling, would it not then be a fair argument to say that support for the death penalty in 10, 20, 30+ years time be even lower? Thus necessitating a new referendum down the line? Meaning that if you used current poll figures to reintroduce it, you'd have to then abolish it yet again in the future.

The article doesn't mention where the polls were conducted, and who responded. And it's just a small sample of people, so hardly a 'democratic' mandate, but I get your point and agree with your earlier one, yes.

impertinence.

🙄

No, not Trolling, fundamentally disagreeing with you, as other democracies have constitutional rights to referenda built into their system, such as Switzerland.

Or are you claiming that Switzerland isn't a democracy Bandit.

Thus necessitating a new referendum down the line? Meaning that if you used current poll figures to reintroduce it, you'd have to then abolish it yet again in the future.

But was it not ever thus? - we've had referendums on Scottish independence before, and the independence lobby lost - is that justification for saying we should not have another one now?

I am sure Ken Loach has lots of important contributions - that was not my point - I accept he is getting on a bit now, but would help to have a better spokesman to make the points.

Young Owen Jones is a more than capable speaker. don\'t like him though for some reason; mainly probably because he's only 13 or something. 😆

No, just stupidity combined with impertinence.

...Bad luck grum - back to the ball now!

FWIW I would put you as centre right - one nation Tory - belief[faith??] in the market/capitalism but with a strong sense of social justice/reponsibility towards those less fortunate

I came out amore left wing and liberal than Ghandi - i was flattered and he was turning in his grave.
[img] http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-9.50&soc=-7.23 [/img]

Owen could do with a little more homework before taking on the big boys though

When talking about political beliefs, do you affiliate yourself with where you would like the country to be, or where you think it could realistically be and still work?

I feel fairly confident that the chart show my views are well grounded and ultimately workable 😉
Does anyone actually think their political view is unworkable whatever the hue?

Owen could do with a little more homework before taking on the big boys though

😆 To be fair, he was only 8 at the time.

Does anyone actually think their political view is unworkable whatever the hue?

Yep.

My political views would require something of a social revolution. Hard to achieve. In the absence of such a thing, I would modify my affiliation. Theory and practice, if you like.

You lot are thinking too much about irrelevant political thoughts.

Well, I keep it simple as I prefer extreme dictatorship and the notion of the Dearest Leader of the Dears that is ... ahem ... me.

I am a fair person so you/all are treated as maggot until you pupate into flies, but then you need to look out for my fly swatter.

Non of those left or right wing nonsense if I am the Dearest of all.

There will be no wars because everyone is put to hard labour to "cool" off ...

I agree to a point, but it's less a new party we need more a new way of living - which includes replacing the current system of money and values we have with something completely different. And until we break the ills of consumerism and its addictive allure with the consequence that goes with it it (cheap goods made abroad with exploitive labour markets for example) - we will never progress with a consensus that benefits the majority and reduce equality gaps. I would also suggest emphasis on employment partnerships rather than shareholder driven value too. If you want to wrap this up in a left wing party than fine but it's going to have to be marketed better than just a socialist party.

cheap goods made abroad with exploitive labour markets for example

so all of you bike parts are uk made by craftsmen rather than mass produced in economies with poor wages, minimal environmental legislation etc.. ?

Hang on a moment. I didn't express that I was exempt from the problem... Besides it's part of my lifestyle choice to try and buy as ethically as possible, where possible.

However it is limiting given bike manufacturers tendency to use cheap Asian labour markets. But owning a Turner frame, fox forks, hope kit and shimano bits and bobs keeps you out of the real made down to a price zone, even if not perfect and still not exactly the UK made by craftsman utopia that ought to exist.

At least it's a factor in my selection process. I only wish it was better.

i think the use of the [b]unless we[/b] and other similar phrases suitably answers that question.
We are all part of the problem though some may try harder than others to not be. We all live in the world as it which is hardly a point worth making and it does note negates the point made - we could make something a bit nicer/fairer.

Inequality if not the complete barometer - pretty much tells us that we are worse as a whole if the gap is too big. So then we have to express whether being too rich is a problem at the expense of someone else being too poor and deal with all the people that think free movement of capital is a good thing.

Personally, I believe you can have too much money and it's a distortion of reality at a certain level. Deciding that level for other people is troublesome.

Money is only a small part of well-being. It's a pretty easy equation to map out - what makes a human happy - but the capitalist system has distorted values of what's important (friendship, health, family, fresh-air etc) and replaced this with 'stuff'.

I post this with my nexus 7 whilst on a ski trip - ho hum. But I completely recognise the trap.

If we could have some of the benefits of capitalism (note most innovations made under the state, GPS, internet - worth thinking about) - and the best social benefits for society - I'd vote for it - or move to Scandinavia where they're closer in this thinking.

[quote=rattrap ]we've had referendums on Scottish independence before, and the independence lobby lost
When was that then?

May I interject?

There is no political solution that will bring about a perfect world where everything is lovely and everybody is happy. It's not going to happen.

Politicians are short-termist incompetents. Money is made by self-interested individuals (either by producing goods, or manipulating the money supply) who, because of the nature of the human condition, get arranged in economic pyramid structures of different levels of wealth. The more ruthless survive and own the most, the weakest have nothing and go to the wall. Politics is just arguing over who gets to put the prettiest border around an ugly picture.

One day, a comet will hit the planet, or the Yellowstone Caldera will explode, or we will initiate a human disaster big enough to guarantee our own extinction if either of those two inevitabilities don't happen first.

In the meantime, the least we could do is stop shouting and get a beer and some sunshine.

That's about it, IMHO. 8)

Carry on.

(The slightly bizarre) Dan Hodges (now even more bizarrely blogging in the Torygraph*) predicts

Up till now many people have just viewed the antics of the hard Left as nothing more than kids having a laugh. But they’re not having a laugh. They’re deadly serious.

In the wake of last week’s welfare rebellion, another shadow cabinet member expressed concern at a series of attacks being launched on Twitter and the blogosphere on Liam Byrne and Jon Cruddas, both of whom were perceived to have acquiesced to Labour’s workfare abstention. “Ed [Miliband] doesn’t understand what the strategy is”, they said. “The unions and the hard cases are planning to clear away anyone on the soft Left who sits between them and the leadership. And then when they’ve done it, they’ll move.”

I’m not sure that’s a fair assessment. I think Labour’s leader does understand the strategy. The problem is he’s powerless to do anything about it. Beholden to the union leaders who secured his election and fund his party, intimidated by the activists that are moulding themselves into a people’s militia, and ever fearful of the Brownites and Blairites he sees patrolling his right flank, Miliband feels trapped.

This, rather than astute tactics, is the real reason for Labour’s policy inertia, and for Miliband’s failure to pivot away from the Left-leaning strategy that secured him the leadership. Ed is scared. Scared that the unions will turn against him, scared that the activists will turn their ire on him, scared that commentators like Polly Toynbee will give him a thumbs down in front of their liberal readerships.

And, Ed Miliband is right to be scared, because they will. The Left senses his fear and his weakness. Step by step they are moving closer. With their calls for new parties and their assemblies and their days of action and threats to his funding, they are slowly but surely narrowing Miliband’s room for manoeuvre.
In time, of course it will all fall apart. Like it always does, the new radicalism will implode amid an orgy of infighting, betrayal and recrimination.

The Left will eat itself. But it will make sure it eats Ed Miliband first.

* actually as a Blairite, perhaps its not a surprising choice after all, especially given the topic in discussion here.

So if UKIP/Tory right eat Dave and the Left eat Ed - what will emerge in their place? Uncle Vince - Ok more "Libertarian" (in theory) than the Tories and Labour, but there are still some things that are difficult to swallow

SOCIALISM
You have 2 cows.
You give one to your neighbour

COMMUNISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and gives you some milk

FASCISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and sells you some milk

NAZISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both and shoots you

BUREAUCRATISM
You have 2 cows.
The State takes both, shoots one, milks the other, and then
throws the milk away

TRADITIONAL CAPITALISM
You have two cows.
You sell one and buy a bull.
Your herd multiplies, and the economy
grows.
You sell them and retire on the income

ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND (VENTURE) CAPITALISM
You have two cows.
You sell three of them to your publicly listed company, using letters of credit opened by
your brother-in-law at the bank, then execute a debt/equity swap with an associated general offer so that you get all four cows back, with a tax exemption
for five cows.
The milk rights of the six cows are transferred via an intermediary to a Cayman Island Company secretly owned by the majority shareholder who sells the rights to all seven cows back to your listed company.
The annual report says the company owns eight cows, with an option on one more. You sell one cow to buy a new president of the United States , leaving you with nine cows. No balance sheet provided with the release.
The public then buys your bull.

SURREALISM
You have two giraffes.
The government requires you to take harmonica lessons.

AN AMERICAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You sell one, and force the other to
produce the milk of four cows.
Later, you hire a consultant to analyse why
the cow has dropped dead.

A GREEK CORPORATION
You have two cows. You borrow lots of euros to build barns, milking sheds, hay stores, feed sheds,
dairies, cold stores, abattoir, cheese unit and packing sheds.
You still only have two cows.

A FRENCH CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You go on strike, organise a riot, and block the roads, because you want three
cows.

A JAPANESE CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce
twenty times the milk.
You then create a clever cow cartoon image called a Cowkimona and
market it worldwide.

AN ITALIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows,
but you don't know where they are.
You decide to have lunch.

A SWISS CORPORATION
You have 5000 cows. None of them belong to you.
You charge the owners for storing them.

A CHINESE CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You have 300 people milking them.
You claim that you have full employment, and high bovine productivity.
You arrest the newsman who reported the real situation.

AN INDIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You worship them.

A BRITISH CORPORATION
You have two cows.
Both are mad.

AN IRAQI CORPORATION
Everyone thinks you have lots of cows.
You tell them that you have none.
No-one believes you, so they bomb the ** out of you and invade your country.
You still have no cows, but at least you are now a Democracy.

AN AUSTRALIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
Business seems pretty good.
You close the office and go for a few beers to celebrate.

A NEW ZEALAND CORPORATION
You have two cows.
The one on the left looks very attractive...

I agree with Woppit.

There is no political solution. There needs to be a social solution. We need to stop blaming each other*, and learn to work to help each other instead. Once we start giving a shit about people we don't know but need our help, the political parties will respond to that to get our votes, and we'll elect the one that does it best.

* it's the dole scroungers/bankers/immigrants/English/Scottish/EU/lazy people/unions etc etc

good evening comrade noteeth!

Libertarians... they tend to occupy political territory in which both anarchists and monied elites can feel comfortable

lovely, where do I sign up?!? 😀

[hijack]
hattip mcmoonter, but thought you might like this. Very Thoreau.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Proenneke

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3NRdZ8J24Q
Im in brizzle for bespoked on the Friday. Beers after with DD & BD. You free to join us?
[/hijack]

More than a new political party, we need a new economic model that addresses how to overcome excessive levels of debt across most sectors of the economy.

Are you suggesting heterodox economics like Ha-Joon Chang?

Seems to be working for South Korea.

Interesting thread this, I'm also in agreement with Woppit.

we need a new economic model that addresses how to overcome excessive levels of debt across most sectors of the economy.

Simple enough, limited tax deductibility as a proportion of turnover rather than profit on corporate interest payments and a cap on resi mortgage advances as a multiple of declared or proven historic earnings.

Everything is so over-leveraged that the world has created too much capital value that's always looking for a home in an asset other than cash. This has had the effect of pooling the ownership of tomorrow's income in relatively small number of economic players and at the same time created such large collections of assets that it's possible to hide truly massive levels of fees unrelated in size to the work involved in each transaction. (hence "bankers" income levels, but remember this doesnt include 80% of "bankers" who are just doing a normal job for a normal wage)

Loum - that's an interesting choice. Ha-Joon Chang certainly attacks some of the concerns us, but is he really heterodox? I think that is clever packaging rather than true. One of his big issues is the fact that countries cannot go bust in the same was as companies can, and linked to this the fact that creditors take a hit, not just debtors. That was Keynes message after the great depression which the current economic and political elite seem desperate to avoid - well publically as they hide the hit to the creditors taxpayer, even in Cyprus!

molgrips - Member

I agree with Woppit.

I think I'm having a heart attack. 😮

Or are you claiming that Switzerland isn't a democracy Bandit.

Pretty sure I've neither said it was or that our model is the only one available. What I have implied however, is that both their system and ours have been arrived at by democratic process, and that democratic process is what will change it as and when there is sufficent demand for that to happen. However, as that has yet to happen, it is clear that the will is not there to bring change about.......or are you suggesting that your view should take precedence over the majority who either don't care enough or actively don't want to change?

(Currently sticking with Troll theory, albeit if there is sufficient reaction agaisnt that I am prepared to reconsider my position)

What I have implied however, is that both their system and ours have been arrived at by democratic process, and that democratic process is what will change it as and when there is sufficent demand for that to happen. However, as that has yet to happen, it is clear that the will is not there to bring change about.

I give you MP's expenses as the flaw in your argument - it relies upon the conventional representative democracy rather than the democracy of the proletariat through universal suffrage. As Marx said,

[i]The oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class are to represent and repress them[/i]

so even where there is sufficient demand for change, no form of democratic system that is permitted by the bourgeoisie would allow them to lose their control of power, so the only way for that to be overthrown would be revolution rather than democracy, and as Trotsky said,[i] A revolution is “made” directly by a minority[/i] so a democratic revolution of the proletariat is impossible.

Marx had a lot to say about a lot of things. Regretably, time seems to have proven not all of it was practical or necessarily correct.

If however this were a Marxist paradigm, the tongue in cheek accusations of trolling could be more seriosu for you. However, I am sticking with the democratic principle and if sufficient of our brethren come out in your favour, I will reconsider your fate. 😉

where do I sign up?!?

Sign up? As in signing a list? Smacks of excessive bureaucracy, imo.

Am probably going to Bespoked on the sat, but should be around friday night. Beers would be good.

Proenneke: what a guy, in the grand tradition of near-solitary Americans.

Pm me if you get a chance then noteeth and we'll try and hook up

Might I suggest the Star and Dove for beers? Food options there. Either that or No.1 Harbourside. We can get smashed on Southville Hop. 😀

Good call DD.

Will pm you both.

Some very interesting responses here. Obviously some of you are quite au fait with economics, although it's unwise to get too bogged down in numbers, as you can often miss the bigger picture. People aren't just numbers and statistics. They have individual lives, experiences and needs which must also be considered. There are far too many people who've gained all their knowledge from textbooks, and not enough who've gained it through real lived experiences, who are making decisions that affect us all. We need a broader spread of knowledge and experience to work on solutions together.

There is no political solution that will bring about a perfect world where everything is lovely and everybody is happy. It's not going to happen.

Politicians are short-termist incompetents. Money is made by self-interested individuals (either by producing goods, or manipulating the money supply) who, because of the nature of the human condition, get arranged in economic pyramid structures of different levels of wealth. The more ruthless survive and own the most, the weakest have nothing and go to the wall. Politics is just arguing over who gets to put the prettiest border around an ugly picture.

Well this is patently obvious to anyone with half a brain, not some earth-shatteringly amazing insight. And I don't think anyone realistically expects a perfect utopia.

In the meantime, the least we could do is stop shouting and get a beer and some sunshine.

This is the kind of apathy that leads to situations like the current one; not enough people actively engaged in considering society around them, and leaving it for others to sort out. Fine if that's all you want to do, but then don't cry if you get beaten and robbed by some desperate drug addict looking for their next fix, ignored and abandoned by a society which would rather close it's doors and shut itself away from other people's problems.

so even where there is sufficient demand for change, no form of democratic system that is permitted by the bourgeoisie would allow them to lose their control of power

Hence the need for a new viable left-wing alternative to the current centre-right status quo. Seeing as how it's historically the Left which has usually challenged and overthrown economic elites.

for all the doubters, its pertinent to note that the bolshevik party in russia only had five thousand members in 1915-- spread throughout a continent, no access to tv, radio, mobile phone, internet etc-- only things they had were belief in their cause, the right slogans that people identified with, an ability to print pamphlets, and a leadership that was willing and able to bring it all to fruition.

So , we have a ruling class unable to 'rule'-- an opposition that is not, but at the moment a vacuum where an alternative could gather momentum and ultimately thrive-- and not through parliamentary democracy.......

Bit pointless in giving the example of the Bolshies and drawing a parallel with the UK, unless you think the answer is widespread murder and civil war!

[b][i]“As Marxists, we have never been idol worshippers of formal democracy.”[/i][/b]

Trotsky

[b][i]"a revolution without firing squads is meaningless"[/i] [/b]

Lenin
(well, attributed to him the actual quote was [i]'If we are not ready to shoot a saboteur and a White Guardist, what sort of great revolution is that? Nothing but talk and a bowl of mush'[/i], but the paraphrased version rolls off the tongue a lot better)

That's not a quote from Lenin. Lenin wrote very clearly and unambiguously exactly what he believed, and he wrote very extensively. So provide a quote from something he wrote and which can be applied to in the correct context.

EDIT : And yet again you edit one of your posts Z-11

And you'll see that I edited it before you said anything Ernie, as I was looking up the quote - and the evidence that he said it was a direct quote recorded by Trosky, and retold in his book, 'lenin' published in 1925

Plus thats the second time you've denied that lenin ever [u]wrote[/u] that, I never claimed he did, and its the second time I've given you the full source and context of what was [u]said[/u] and who recorded it, but you still try to pull the wool over peoples eyes with a flat denial even though you knew damn well that you would get pwned, because the bloke who says he said it has a far, far better pedigree on the works of Lenin than you ever will!

Now, who are we going to believe - you, or the bloke who was in the room with him when he said it? 😉

And you'll see that I edited it before you said anything Ernie, as I was looking up the quote

Don't you think that you should have 'looked up the quote' [i]before[/i] posting it ?

Still, you're always having second thoughts and editing your posts, so no change there.

And who to believe ? ....how about believing Lenin himself ? I'm sure he knew himself exactly what he thought, and as I said, he wrote very clearly and unambiguously exactly what he believed, and he also wrote very extensively, so maybe relying on what he wrote would be more sensible that on hearsay which is rewritten to say something completely different, and which you now fully acknowledge after your edit.

Hitler also wrote widely, clearly and unambiguously exactly what he believed - but there's no written proof that he ordered the murder of millions of Jews

Given the evidence against Lenin comes from one of the fellow leaders of the revolution, , and given the fact that its accepted Lenin signed orders for the shooting of 765 white guards, and given Lenin himself said in a recorded speech in March '22:

[i]“Permit us to put you before a firing squad for saying that. Either you refrain from expressing your views, or, if you insist on expressing your political views publicly in the present circumstances, when our position is far more difficult than it was when the white guards were directly attacking us, then you will have only yourselves to blame if we treat you as the worst and most pernicious white guard elements."[/i]

I think I'll prefer that evidence to your own socialist worker sanitised version of the truth!

Pwned!

Hitler also wrote widely, clearly and unambiguously exactly what he believed - but there's no written proof that he ordered the murder of millions of Jews

What the hell are you talking about ?

You attributed a specific quote to Lenin, you didn't simply make the claim that Lenin supported the use of firing squads.

If you are now simply claiming that Lenin supported the use of firing squads, then of course he did, in exactly the same way as the British government also did at that time.

But that wasn't what you were saying, and well you know it.

.

Pwned!

Yeah right, I feel so "Pwned" 🙄

Jesus, there's so much editing going on, I can't follow this new fella rattrap's posts. 😕

DD, I'd recommend just ignoring the thread and having a nice beer instead.

I've got Thornbridge Jaipur, and am about to cook steak.

thx1138 - Member

Because the right-wing 'solution' isn't working.

What we have isn't particularly right wing.
I think we need a proper right wing political party. 🙂

And please keep it civil and respectful.

ahem

UKIP votoers got off their narrow-minded bigoted arses to vote

Did somebody order a crate full off hippos? 🙂