- This topic has 102 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 17 years, 11 months ago by
.
- Posts
Whatever our own personal views of these extreme parties, if they attract 5% of the popular vote, put another way 1 in 20 of those who voted, then surely those 5% have the right to have their views expressed?
Is that not the precept of democracy?
Agreed
A truly democratic parliament should include representatives of all political doctrines however minor, extreme or peculiar and the only way that is likely to be acheived is through PR
Regarding the BNP: I would be prepared to give them a cursory time-of-day but for the fact that to my eyes the majority of their (male) members seem at pains to model themselves on Herr Schicklgruber – all sharp, bespoke suits and brylcreemed short-back-and-sides; the bloke who ran for the Mayoralty being the latest clone.
Very sinister
I agree with Marb. The worst thing the Tory party can do is to set out a range of policies two years out from an election. No-one wants to know about their policies. They are the opposition and their job is to bash the government whilst appearing to be fresh and interesting.
Any policy announcements should be made during the election campaign, should be brief and to the point and modest so they cannot be accused of making false promises. The rest of the time they should concentrate on bashing Gordon Brown and emphasizing how young and dynamic Cameron is by contrast.
They wasted much of their early time in opposition agonising over policies and then setting them out lovingly for the public to view, only to find that the public couldn’t give a toss. And any idea that did prove popular was promptly stolen by Labour. Lesson learned, I think.
Quite fuuny really, the BNP have a seat and red Ken got the boot. Apart from all of the good posts on this thread about politics and stuff, I would personally like to think that British people will become as cynical and shallow towards politics as the politicians themselves are.
I think the lord mayor of Hartlepool is a rabbit or something .. now thats more like it ..
A fair response Marb, and I accept AH’s point. Specific policy detail on many of the issues isn’t necessary in opposition. It wasn’t a trick question btw, but I’m yet to be convinced Cameron is anything more than a chancer at present, aka a Tory Tony Blair – win power at any cost. As I would have thought by now a coherent approach to policy, throughout his Shadow Cabinet would have been evident. This doesn’t appear to be the case.
Perhaps this is simply ‘modern politics’. However, I believe most people would prefer a clear response to most issues based on a political/social conviction rather than the ad hoc approach of Blair/Brown. I’m not convinced Cameron has such a conviction as he seems very much in a modern Anthony Eden mould of Tory leader.
I don’t really want to get involved in a political debate. Spending less time on here now and only popped in to read up on horse racing. It just seems to much one way traffic on this thread so here is my tuppence worth.
How has the Tory party changed under Cameron? With no policies how do we know? The only change is Cameron now in charge everyone else who was there is still there, just stifled for now. Cameron has made a better job of shutting up all his liabilities. I think that Headcases programme has Cameron spot on. I also find it disagreeable that local elections which should be voted on with regards to local issues are so heavily tainted by national politics.
As far as I remember we do not have US style Presidents. The party and their policies are supposed to be what matters. Even through the press only want to focus on the party leaders. Maybe coming close to an election some of the press might start asking the difficult questions like OK give us a clue what your policies are on anything. I think the wheels will come of the bandwagon pretty quickly when for instance Cameron puts forward his policy on Europe
What the Tory party has done is nothing really but sit on the fence. They have just let the press hounds bite away at labour to bring them down. The public distaste for Iraq and dislike for Blair is the main reasons Labour is doing badly and the Tories are doing better. Even though a Tory PM would have made exactly the same decision to go to war in Iraq as Blair did. The second main reason is the global credit crunch hiiting people where it hurts. Even though the UK might actually come out of this OK despite the press hype talking us into a recession
The same this is happening in Scotland though the SNP not Tories are benefiting. Scotland will not accept a Tory government and if the Tories win the next election then independence for Scotland and the break up of the UK will probably be only a few years down the line.
Must go and lie down now
Kev,
Its pretty fair to say that "New Labour" have been a total and utter disaster in british politics who have hoodwinked the nation for long enough under a web of spin, and crafty spin doctored responses to avoid tackling the subject of their failings. The state of the country was much better when they assumed power from the conservatives than it is now.
You know where you stand with the conservatives as they are and always have been a conventionally right wing party. Below is a brief description of the difference between left and right.
Well, the right wing tends to be associated more with ‘conservative’ values (with a small ‘c’)… the status quo and tradition. They tend to be me tougher on law and order than the left, and emphasise the importance of free trade and low taxation policies, often cutting tax when in power. A welfare state may be seen as important, but not the extent as for a more left wing society.
The right essentially plays up the role of the individual, and in an extreme right wing view, like atomism, there may be no society, but only a collection of individuals. Extreme right wing views are those such as fascism. Most governments these days move away from the right to the centre.
The left wing, on the other hand, is associated much more with what may be termed more liberal values, the role of society, and the community as a whole. Law and order policies tend to be more relaxed, taxation is increased by large amounts as they look to create a safety net and look after the poorer members of society through a more robust healthcare system etc.
The autonomy and role of the individual is undermined much more in such a system, and the state plays a larger role in people’s lives. Many governments of today occupy a centre-left position. These governments are more likely to experience poor law and order records, and declining success of businesses, due to the taxation policies and more relaxed approach to law and order.
In my view New Labour who have hailed always been hailed as "new right" have always been a party with an Identity crisis as those at the front of the party have always attempted to drive it to be more like a conservative government, because the lefties of the previous reign drove the country into recession and they more than likely wanted to distance themselves from that. However, as has been seen many times in their term in power there are so many looney lefties of yesteryear in the backbenches and filling a large demographic of their party that they cannot move into the right, how many times have we seen the likes of Mo Mowlams, Robin Cooks etc close ranks against the direction the party is moving and in fact they walked out, and they were part of the cabinet at one stage (obviously both now deceased).
Its not just the war in Iraq and the wrecking of the economy that have been a disaster under labour, the failure of police to tackle real crime, in favour of revenue generating crime targets which form part of the bigger picture of hammering the motorist every which way you can, same with smokers, drinkers, single people, pensioners, low earners etc, etc.
Another few disasters which they have brushed aside are
The Family Tax Credit Fiasco, where they paid people incorrectly, even when many initially questioned the payments and then they sent the inland revenue round honest working peoples doors up and down the country to demand money back with threats of legal action and prosecution.
The war in Iraq and two seperate deployments to Afghanistan to support the Americans in the Oil Wars have been an absolute disaster. Troops have been sent out badly equipped, badly looked after and badly treated when they return in bits. The forces are now in a state of crisis as a result with large numbers of people leaving and attempts to recruit from schools and places like Fiji and the Gurkhas are not bringing in the right numbers or quality, They are currently offering £15k retention bonuses to hold on to overstretched staff.
The minimum wage which has seen the death of the job centre and the rise of the corporate recruitment company.
The spin of the Economic boom which was never apparent to many and has led to a situation where most of the new property buyers in britain cant afford a roof over their heads and have played a big part in the credit crisis.
The failure to tackle the uncomfortable issue of the Immigration problem and the subsequent alienation of many of the immigrant populus through the declaration of war on weak islamic nations, which has lead to terrorist attacks and a climate of fear in Britain. I was quite surprised at how many of those picked up fighting the americans in post 9/11 Afghanistan and sent to guantanamo were from the west midlands.
The increasing exodus of people from Rip-Off-Britain to live abroad.
The 10p tax issue recently has been the biggest issue because it has come at a time when many have had enough and shows clearly that there are no limits to which Brown wont stoop to generate revenue, by hammering the lowest earners.
The wiping out of the farming in Britain through scare after scare after scare of diseases that dont ever seem to emerge in the other EU countries, and the failure of the goverment to help out.
The selling off of council houses, which has been a big big factor in the property boom.
All of these things have been spun into success stories but they are far from it.
The conservatives will be very different in my view.
Im sure that one of the fundamental differences between the left and the right is that the right are more in favour of gradual change whilst the left are in favour of rapid change and this has been clear in the Labour Reign and this leaves room for money saving changes.
They have implimented so many changes in their term and in order to be able to do promulgate and impliment these they have appointed huge numbers of middle managers across the public sector to stay on top of all the policy reviews I was in hospital for 3 days in 2003 and had 3 different Ward managers come in to see how I was getting on, which wound me up a bit as I’d had to wait in A&E from 10pm until 11am the next morning because there was only 1 doctor on, (in an A&E on a friday night at a hospital that looks after an area of some 200,000 people). Yet we have seen many cockups in the NHS, MRSA being one such case. This is typical of the Pay More Get Less ethos that we have seen under them. were the tories to get rid of many of these middle managers from across the public sector it would save plenty.
Another area, where we are losing money is in the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan which have a huge finanicial drain on the country. The sheer cost logistically alone of keeping troops in conflict theatres across the globe at present is well into the billions. Blair has let America dictate the strength of our commitment out there, whilst many of the other NATO member states maintain minimal commitments, and we supposedly go into afghanistan (again) because they produce opium poppies (not oil of course) and whilst the americans are generally out of the way of trouble at camp bastion, our troops are getting hammered patrolling the Hellmand Province (well known as the worst province). A firm union with america IMO gives us a bit more leverage with europe because they realise that we dont need them that much as much as they need each other, but there is going too far.
These are two areas I can think of where we are paying out huge amounts of money unnecessarily.
Then theres policing which may revert back to the good old fashioned role of catching criminals and tackling crime rather than throwing most of their resources into going round handing out penalty points/speeding fines etc.
To be honest I think the tories have a hard job being anywhere near as bad as New Labour, but I look forward to their return as hopefully a refreshing and well needed change for Britain.
In 21st Century Britain, opposition parties don’t win elections – encumbent ruling parties lose them.
That’s why the Tory’s are doing so well in the polls, despite a patent lack of measurable policy. All they need is rhetoric that demands change – the incompetence of the Government will win the election for them.
Political ideas and ideology are consigned to the dustbin of the 20th Century. It is all merely shades of centre-right these days, whether it is packaged as New Labour or Conservative.
All an election decides is who gets to manage that centre-right agenda.
Some democracy.
Marb, you keep rattling-on about Gordon Brown and his "socialist" policies.
I suggest you a) go and look-up what ‘Socialism’ means, b) take another look at Brown’s economic policy during his long years as Chancellor. If you can show me the areas where the two merge, I would be most grateful.
Bulwark – a long post containing some interesting points, however, there are one or two things I would pick you up on.
You criticise Robin Cook for opposing the direction the party was moving in yet he resigned specifically over the Iraq war, which you also criticised. Neither Robin Cook nor Mo Mowlam were by any stretch of the imagination ‘loony lefties’ and you would be hard put to find more than a handful of extreme left wingers in the Labour backbenchers. There are, almost to a man/woman, Blairite centrists. If you think this PLP is left wing, you should delve back a little further in history and find out about the Labour party in the early eighties.
I’m not sure whether you realise it or not, but many of the people on this forum are quite aware of the traditional differences between right and left, so I’m not sure why you felt the need to spell that out, nor where you got the quote from. It does contain some innaccuracies though. Both extreme left and extreme right lead to authoritarian government. The left wing is not concerned with ‘liberal values’ – the liberal party is a party of the centre. And the right does not historically play up the role of the individual. More specifically, in this country, the Tory/Conservative party is an amalgamation of different strands of right wing thought, including free-market individualism (essentially Liberalism) ‘one nation’ Conservatism and the more right wing Duke of Wellington style faith in Church, Army and Monarchy. The history of the Conservative party is fascinating and well worth reading up on.
I’m not sure what you meant by ‘the minimum wage has seen the death of the job centre and the rise of the corporate recruitment agency’. Both job centres and recruitment agencies existed before 1997 and they continue to do so. Indeed, of the many closures and cut backs made in the DWP, job centres are one of the few areas to hold their own.
I’d agree that support for troops has been poor – but that is nothing new. Since the Napoleonic wars, we have consistently failed to give proper support in terms of equipment to our armed forces and I don’t see that changing under Cameron. It is a combination of structural weaknesses and attitude at the Ministry of Defence. You could argue that Labour has not addressed it and that is correct.
Agree with your general point that there have been too many tiers of middle management across the public sector. But most of them are there because Labour has tried to run the public sector as though it was a business, particularly in the NHS. In normal businesses, the bottom line is the profit/loss record, clear to see and understand. In the public sector, there is no profit but in order to pretend that they are operating in a ‘market’ they have had to install new mechanisms, rafts of targets and pretend ‘business units’ none of which was necessary. I don’t see that changing under Cameron, nor do I see him reigning back the obscene amounts of money (something like £2billion) spent on private consultants.
On farming, I am not well placed to comment, though I would point out that BSE emerged under the previous Tory administration and many of these diseases occur because of poor farming/butchery practices.
The selling off of council houses began under Margaret Thatcher, as did the first property booms and the beginnings of the problems we have today with first time buyers unable to get a foot on the ladder and those who have mortgaged themselves up to the eyeballs in trouble when the prices start to slow. I would agree that, once again, Labour have merely continued the existing trend and not addressed it, which they should have done.
As for policing, it is a long standing tradition for opposition parties to pledge that they will, ‘get more bobbies on the beat’ but it has so far proved elusive. You use the word, ‘may’ which I think is wise.
Im sure that one of the fundamental differences between the left and the right is that the right are more in favour of gradual change whilst the left are in favour of rapid change and this has been clear in the Labour Reign and this leaves room for money saving changes.
Quite the opposite, in fact. The Conservative Party’s tradition, certainly in the nineteenth century was of gradual change, whilst preserving what is good in the existing society. But Thatcher’s Conservatives embarked on huge change – they remodelled the country entirely and very little was left unaffected by their changes. I make no comment on whether that was good or bad, but to say that Thatcher believed in ‘gradual change’ would be some way distant from the truth. And by contrast, this Labour government has actually done very little. All of the major developments were already in place – aside from the minimum wage and the independence of the Bank of England, there is very little that they have actually done. For the most part, they have taken Thatcher’s reforms and run with them.
Finally (because I’ve rambled on long enough) I do find all this talk of Labour being ‘left-wing’ rather baffling. This is possibly the least left wing Labour Party and certainly the least left wing Labour government since in history. They have presided over a housing boom, encroaching privatisation and contracting out, involved the private sector in more areas than ever before and embarked on an aggressive American-inspired foreign policy. They have consistently avoided increasing taxes on the very wealthy, including the latest climb down on non-doms and the only even vaguely left wing thing they have introduced is the minimum wage and that is hardly ground-breaking – even the US has that.
For someone who grew up on politics in the 1980s, this talk of New Labour as ‘left-wing’ is baffling and worth a chuckle. They are tired, inept, untrustworthy and overdue a kicking, certainly. But left wing? Hardly.
As ever, Grasshopper has said in a few sentences what it took me an essay to get out.
It is understandable that Cameronites want to paint New Labour as left wing – it gives them something to fight against, rather than having to admit that they are all shades of centre-right.
And as for the BNP, if this Assembly member is anything like the assorted collection of criminals and imbeciles who have represented that squalid little party at council level in the past, he/she is more likely to be a danger to themselves than the community.
Precisely. Flash is right that some of the BNP’s policies are at least on nodding terms with those of some of the more socially acceptable political parties, but I wonder if it’s perhaps too much to hope that the Assembly member in question won’t be possessive of, or at least too sympathetic to, the other more extreme BNP policies.
I know from the party’s leafleting, PR exercises, etc. in my parents’ hometown that whilst Griffin cuts a arguably / cosmetically credible figure on the surface, the candidates he presides over in that town have previous where race-related crimes are concerned, almost without exception.
gc
Jeremy Grayson. Son of immigrant. Adoptive father of two. Metadata librarian. Freelance point-to-point / horse racing writer, analyst and commentator wonk. Loves music, buses, cats, the BBC Micro, ale. Advocate of CBT, PACE and therapeutic parenting. Aspergers.
I was delighted to see Boris getting elected but I’ve got a question for NV, GC and other liberal democrats on the forum.
I see becoming the Mayor of London as a great PR achievement for any party. With Ken Livingstone appearing to be unelectable this time why didn’t the Libs put forward a really strong candidate that could have got elected and therefore started something of a band wagon. I’m thinking of somebody like Simon Hughes or Lembit Opik who may have got the capital behind them.
Truth be told, in what was ultimately a race of personalities as much as policies, I think the LibDems put forward Paddick in the bounden belief that he was the slightly larger than life character within their midst who could grab the attention of enough of the electorate. And to an extent that was undoubtedly true, if compared against certain previous mayoral nominations such as Susan Kramer.
The problem with putting up Hughes or Opik this time was possibly that;
– in their respective ways, they each represent slightly tarnished goods nowadays,
– each still harbours his own, possibly greater, political amibitions; and it suits neither man to be encumbered with the post of mayor if it ever came to pass that a Labour / LibDem coalition demanded the forming of a mixed cabinet come the next election,
– both of the above,
– neither of the above!
I wasn’t disappointed with the nomination of Paddick, although at this remove it seems a little bit of a shame that the most enduring memory of his campaign hereafter will probably be him pronouncing Kate Hoey as – to all intents and purposes – mad as a box of frogs.
Jeremy
(graysonscolumn)Jeremy Grayson. Son of immigrant. Adoptive father of two. Metadata librarian. Freelance point-to-point / horse racing writer, analyst and commentator wonk. Loves music, buses, cats, the BBC Micro, ale. Advocate of CBT, PACE and therapeutic parenting. Aspergers.
marb – I share your pain, we had Smile Maths Cards at our school too. It wasn’t enough to turn me Tory though. I can’t reconcile my political beliefs to any of the major political parties. Remember the old saying, "It doesn’t matter who you vote for (maaan,) The Government always get in."
It seems like we are to be treated to a merry-go-round of big talking, little doing, stooges of big business for the foreseeable future.
Thanks for your very good, detailed and interesting reply Andrew and I expect that there would have some innaccuracies in my original post as it was more one of those "tired and couldnt sleep and on an interesting subject so thought I just post instead" posts, it has however provoked some decent debate.
Just a few points where I would pick up on, Mo Mowlam almost definitely always came across to me as a looney lefty, in her time as northern ireland secretary she instantly bacame affiliated with the left wing parties and and took such a stance in their favour that they had to pull her out of that position because the right wing parties had lost all respect for her abilities to look at things in a balanced way, and the peace process was beginning to fall apart. The policies introduced by her in northern ireland were very much left wing IMO.
When at college 96-99 I had to study politics and was always taught that labour having been traditionally a left wing party was now "new labour" who most certainly were the "new right", on several occasions since then, when watching them in parliament and on question time etc. I have got the strong impression that all of the party is not in on that same wavelength. There have been a few whose names I cant really remember, as you dont. Mowlam and Cook are two examples that I have used as they on several occasions stood up against Blair and in more memorable fashion, and there was always speculation (and if I remember a documentary featuring both after they left) which suggested that they were not at all happy with the way blair ran the party or where the party was going as a result. Indeed they both left as a result of the war in iraq but this always came across to me as the straw which broke the camels back. Saying that, I always saw my politics teachers as looney lefties so perhaps I lean strongly to the right.
I take your point about the decisions of the cabinet being largely to the right (although I have always seen the labour cabinet to be largely slanted to the right anyway), and its very interesting when I come to think of them further, as many of their policies are indeed right wing, although the high rates of taxation and revenue in almost all aspects of life is somewhat leftish, is brown building a war chest or has he indeed been wasting all this money in other areas? I still do believe that many of the labour back benchers etc are of the old left wings view, or are at least still very sympathic to it, bearing in mind that many joined when it was a left wing party, the 10p tax crisis within the party is sort of indicative of this, although there will also surely be resentment against it for the pure reason that it will probably see a lot of them out of a job soon.
The little snippet about the differences between right and left came from googling “right wing politicsâ€
In 21st Century Britain, opposition parties don’t win elections – encumbent ruling parties lose them.
That’s why the Tory’s are doing so well in the polls, despite a patent lack of measurable policy. All they need is rhetoric that demands change – the incompetence of the Government will win the election for them.
Political ideas and ideology are consigned to the dustbin of the 20th Century. It is all merely shades of centre-right these days, whether it is packaged as New Labour or Conservative.
All an election decides is who gets to manage that centre-right agenda.
Some democracy.
Marb, you keep rattling-on about Gordon Brown and his "socialist" policies.
I suggest you a) go and look-up what ‘Socialism’ means, b) take another look at Brown’s economic policy during his long years as Chancellor. If you can show me the areas where the two merge, I would be most grateful.
Grassy is spot on and makes my point far better than I. Its not that the Tories and Cameron are doing well. Its more Labour are becoming so unpopular and public perception makes Cameron look much better than he is.
There is no proof that Cameron and the Tories would do any better in the next government than Labour as there are no policies on which to make such a judgement. Its like backing a horse with no form. There is also little evidence that the Tories would have done much different from Labour on the big decisions in the past i.e. only the Liberals might have kept us out Iraq. I am pretty sure that once the Tories try to implement a set policy on the major issues they will come apart at the seams.
I find it breath taking that people can only remember as far back than yesterday’s Sun headlines. Maybe lucky not to remember the 16% mortgage rates (shocker that) and winters of discontent etc
I am not an apologist for the Labour party or a Liberal. However it appears to me the only party that is and has been consistant all along and offers a real prospect of change is the Liberals.
Interesting post, Bulwark and it is true that personal experience can colour political views, as it has undoubtedly with me.
My take on the Labour party is that they have more or less continued what Thatcher started. On house prices and economy, it seems that no government of the last thirty years or so has been able to resist allowing a boom to start or been powerless to stop it. Bust follows boom inevitably and I suspect that is where we are heading now just as we did after the mid eighties consumer boom.
Interesting about the job centre/minimum wage – I hadn’t noticed that – I might look into it, I know that both Brown and Cameron are keen on involving the private sector in helping people to find work. Inevitably, they will find jobs for those who are willing/qualified whilst leaving the harder cases to the jobcentres.
If the last Conservative government was so wonderful and everything in those days was great how come they got rid of Thatcher and a few years later were defeated by the Labour party..methinks things weren’t all that great under the Tories…I’m also old enough to remember a time pre Thatcher when people who couldn’t afford to buy a house could rent a council house…I remember being terrified at the end of each month that my husband would be made redundant and we would be forced to move to another part of the country to find work…I can’t remember how high the rate of inflation actually went [remember inflation?]. Believe me, some of us were pretty miserable at times under that woman, and she didn’t care one bit, and I don’t think I’ve ever hated anyone as much.I’m not saying that Labour haven’t lost touch with the electorate or that things in this country are perfect at the moment, but please remember that things weren’t perfect under the Tories either [sleeze, scandal etc etc].
Mo – I am old enough to remember how bad it was pre-Thatcher – devaluation, the country held to ransom by the unions, rubbish piling up on the streets and you couldn’t even bury the dead.
It is funny how people who are happy to vilify Margaret Thatcher have selective amnesia about the Labour government that preceded her rise to power.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.