General Election 2015

[kaosmark2]

the real left

che..?

Yes, most people would accept Che Guevara as part of the real left.

[LJS]

I'm guessing most of us on here would like to see a Labour party that is further to the left of what we have at the moment & certainly further left than we look to be about to get.

Where we disagree is whether that is practical, whether any party of the left can be electable.

Neil is the main proponent of the argument that the British electorate will never vote for a "proper" left wing party.

As evidence he comes up with statements like...

Show me the people voting for the real left and I'll show you a very small and marginalised group of people.

Now on the face of it it's hard to argue with this statement. Hardly anyone votes for left wing parties. What Neil knows very well (but chooses to ignore) is that under FPTP there is absolutely no point in voting for fringe parties. No matter how much you want agree with the Socialist Labour Party, or Class War you know you're wasting your vote if you do.

Furthermore, these parties get no publicity, no opportunity to argue their case. You probably have to go back to 1983 for the last time a major party (Labour) put a left wing manifesto before the voters. Neil will now be rubbing his hands in glee and sharpening up Gerald Kaufman's famous quote that the 1983 Labour manifesto was the "longest suicide note in history" because Labour lost that election giving the Blessed Maggie her second term. Neil will tell you this is conclusive proof that left wing policies cannot win.

But, wait a minute. Labour were a completely ungovernable nightmare at that time- the gang of 4 had recently split to form the SDP - what was left of the party were at each other's throats and the man charged with leading them, Michael Foot a white haired dishevelled throwback to a bygone era - don't get me wrong I hold Foot in the highest esteem & think he was one of the finest political minds of his generation, he was an inspired & passionate public speaker ... but he was appalling on TV & (does this ring any bells) far too easy to make fun of. Now, you'd think that would be enough to lose any election but just as a cherry on the cake Maggie had just won back the Falklands & Britain could once again hold its head high in the world . So, that doesn't prove much either.

So what we know so far is that the voters have not been given a realistically electable left wing option for 32 years & even that one wasn't really realistic or electable.

The next thing that is held up as evidence against the left is that the only Labour Leader to have one an election since 1066 (or something) is Tony Blair. Let's knock that on the head quickly. the Tories were in such a state in 1997 that a polished turd could have led Labour to victory. Which is what happened. I rest my case.

But, wait a minute, we've just seen the defeat of a Labour Party at least making some half hearted attempts to move back to the left. Now of course there are those who say this is all the fault of the Gnasty Gnats & if it wasn't for them Ed would have swept into Downing Street triumphantly. Neil tends towards the belief that this is at least part of the problem. If that's true, then there must be underlying support for the left. Sadly it's not true (well at least I don't think it is - & certainly not to an extent that has denied labour power)

So, have I just undermined my own argument?

I don't think so because what I haven't addressed yet is the way labour campaigned & the leader it chose.

I have said this before, i warmed to Ed during the campaign. I thought the came across as decent & fair minded & generally a nice chap. In an ideal world that should maybe be enough. We don't live in an ideal world. we live in a world where if you can't eat a bacon sandwich, people will bully you mercilessly. No matter how hard he tried (hell yeah) he came across as passionless - you could almost imagine a bell ringing & a voice shouting - OK Ed - time to argue for the other side now. he was too apologetic and the campaign often appeared to have been designed to appease Tory voters. How many times did Neil have to defend the Immigration Mug.

So I am arguing for a labour party campaigning for radical left wing policies. That'll never work, I hear you all scream. Why not? When did a party last set out to actually persuade voters that their policies were right.

Last year in Scotland & it wasn't just a party it was a movement. It was a cause. OK it lost but it hugely increased the support for independence & it energised the voters in a manner unprecedented since the end of WW2. It is of no importance whether you agree with independence or whether you agree with the policies of the Yes movement, Labour should study them & try and build a movement for the radical reform of the UK

If they are to do this there are four things that are absolutely essential.

1: you need to believe passionately in your policies.

2: you need to argue passionately for these policies

3: you need a wider movement that involves people who are not Labour members

4: you need an inspirational leader.

The last one may be the biggest problem - short of signing Nicola Sturgeon in the transfer window, or giving Nigel Farage a brain transplant I'm not clear where this leader is coming from but I don't follow the English Labour Party as closely as some of you guys. Someone like Mark Steel is what they need. Christ imagine how good a labour party would be with Mark Steel in charge

You probably also need to abandon the middle ground to the Lib Dems ( & pay the membership subscriptions for Blair, Mandelson & for Christ's sake Dave Miliband and all the other prophets of doom who are already gleefully picking at the corpse of Labour's 2015 campaign.)

The odds are massively stacked against Labour for the next election. In all probability, the Tories will be able to proclaim that they have ended the deficit & cleared up Labour's mess. they will have changed the boundaries to their advantage & its hard to see Labour staging a full recovery in Scotland. In other words more of the same is unlikely to work.

Why not try something different? Why not be brave?

...

...

Yeah I know I'm crazy

Edited May 11, 2015 by LJS

[viberunner]

Nope, I'm a Marxist.

Marxism. The system of politics defined by countries putting up barbed-wire walls and sniper towers to prevent people escaping.

Don't even say it, I know, I know "not True Marxist".

[Comfy Bean]

I'd say it's a very good start.

It's a party that needs fewer opportunitists.

Aye. Like Russell Brand for example.

[viberunner]

Mind you, in fairness to him, high fences, bullying security, stop & search, and inadequate housing and sanitation is de rigeur for modern music festivals.

More Marxist than we thought!

[LJS]

http://lakitusdevcartridge.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/marxism-groucho-marx.jpg Edited May 11, 2015 by LJS

[eFestivals]

It doesn't have to be the opposite.

but if it's not opposite, then the UK's version of what-is-left doesn't get to win.

As I'm trying to point out.

PR changes nothing at all of the result. It would only change a few minor policies within that result.

We got a right wing govt because a clear majority of people wanted a right wing govt.

It's called 'democracy' and changing the way democracy is administered doesn't change democracy.

I know for you everything is black or white, but life isn't like that

Life is *EXACTLY* like that, if you're prepared to accept other people's opinions.

People voted for right wing parties because they wanted right wing parties.

They didn't vote for right wing parties because they wanted left wing parties.

It's black and white, unless you have your head up your arse and so can only see shit.

Edited May 12, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Neil is the main proponent of the argument that the British electorate will never vote for a "proper" left wing party.

you continually rant about what you do no less than me.

I've not said that and I don't mean that. They might sometimes vote for a 'proper' left wing govt, but less-so than than they'll vote for a Blair-type of 'left wing'. The majority of people live in the centre ground, unsurprisingly.

Is the pain of 'principles' worth it? By sticking to those 'principles' you don't make things better for people, you make them worse, by giving them a greater amount of 'bad' times without enough coming from the 'good' times to make it worthwhile.

Now on the face of it it's hard to argue with this statement. Hardly anyone votes for left wing parties. What Neil knows very well (but chooses to ignore) is that under FPTP there is absolutely no point in voting for fringe parties. No matter how much you want agree with the Socialist Labour Party, or Class War you know you're wasting your vote if you do.

And what you choose to ignore is that there's no left majority.

People don't vote for UKIP because they support the Communist Party.

What about politics do you need explaining to you?

Edited May 12, 2015 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

Marxism. The system of politics defined by countries putting up barbed-wire walls and sniper towers to prevent people escaping.

Don't even say it, I know, I know "not True Marxist".

Marxism. A social explanation of society as given by Marx.

But don't go giving up these displays of your gross ignorance.

[eFestivals]

PMSL - you argue for the left, and then dispise the left.

But you're all so very spot-on, the UK really really wants to be governed by the left. You embracing it so readily shows that to everyone.

Or alternatrively, you're just showing what fruitcakes you really are.

No fucking wonder you think the party of lax bankers regulation and Murdoch corruption and austerity-max are a left party ... and just in case that's passed you by, I'm talking about the SNP and not the tories. The facts are in what they've said and done.

[LJS]

PMSL - you argue for the left, and then dispise the left.

But you're all so very spot-on, the UK really really wants to be governed by the left. You embracing it so readily shows that to everyone.

Or alternatrively, you're just showing what fruitcakes you really are.

No fucking wonder you think the party of lax bankers regulation and Murdoch corruption and austerity-max are a left party ... and just in case that's passed you by, I'm talking about the SNP and not the tories. The facts are in what they've said and done.

Thanks for that clarification cos your description can be applied equally to the Tories & Labour.

Which makes it pretty stupid.

[eFestivals]

Thanks for that clarification cos your description can be applied equally to the Tories & Labour.

Which makes it pretty stupid.

Only the tories and SNP advocated even weaker bank regulation, not Labour.

Only the SNP have been proven to be corrupted by Murdoch (tho I'll concede that the others probably were too). The SNP remains corrupted by Murdoch, Labour had a policy that would remove some of Murdoch's power and influence.

Only the SNP have been advocating austerity-Max. Tory spending cuts are lesser, and Labour's policies would have seen them spend more than the SNP.

It's a right bugger that truth is, eh?

Edited May 12, 2015 by eFestivals

[LJS]

Only the tories and SNP advocated even weaker bank regulation, not Labour.

Only the SNP have been proven to be corrupted by Murdoch (tho I'll concede that the others probably were too). The SNP remains corrupted by Murdoch, Labour had a policy that would remove some of Murdoch's power and influence.

Only the SNP have been advocating austerity-Max. Tory spending cuts are lesser, and Labour's policies would have seen them spend more than the SNP.

It's a right bugger that truth is, eh?

Yeah, the truth that Labour DID deregulate tha banks. The truth that there is no evidence of any current link between Murdoch & the Snp & the truth that Labour were going to implement Tory cuts. Edited May 12, 2015 by LJS

[feral chile]

We don't really have any way to vote for genuine change. All parties have to shore up capitalism.

I had a heated discussion about this with my husband recently, regarding tax. People don't like tax, they see it as an infringement of liberty, the government stealing what's rightfully theirs, etc.

It's quite difficult to think outside the box that is a capitalist democracy, however.

'Rightfully theirs' is a loaded term.

As far as collectives go, the idealist in me wants to see this. The realist in me thinks that we primates haven't yet evolved beyond group status/power ranking, so it'll be a case of 'some more equal than others' for any social system until we reach a new stage of evolution.

Edited May 12, 2015 by feral chile

[eFestivals]

Yeah, the truth that Labour DID deregulate tha banks.

yep ... and the truth is that the SNP and the tories wanted them regulated even less.

Doing something more damaging is not something equal or better than Labour.

The truth that there is no evidence of any current link between Murdoch & the Snp

and there's no evidence that they're not currently linked either.

However, there is evidence of the SNP being Murdoch friendly - welcoming his support, and not having any policies to limit his too-big influence.

Doing things worse is not doing things equal or better than Labour.

& the truth that Labour were going to implement Tory cuts.

for one year. Over five years they'd have spent more than the SNP.

The SNP were going to implement cuts too, don't forget. Bigger cuts than Labour.

Spending less money on public services is not doing things equal or better than Labour.

Edited May 12, 2015 by eFestivals

[pink_triangle]

Stella Creasy considering running for labour deputy leadership. Would be a good option in my view, wish she would run for the main job!

[eFestivals]

It's not black and white. I find it hard to believe an intelligent person would think so. There are many reasons why some people didn't vote for Labour. Some think they are too left, some not left enough. Some thought Ed looked weird.

Yes, there's many reasons why people didn't vote Labour.

But that reason is NEVER about people voting right wing because they want left wing.

What part of "there is no left wing majority" are you having such difficulty with?

We don't have a right wing govt because people wanted the left.

We don't have a right wing govt because people want PR.

We have a right wing majority because those who wanted a right-ist govt voted for the right and caused the majority they were hoping for.

FFS.

[eFestivals]

Insert inane smiley here

I see yo0u've inserted your empty brain again.

How's about you insert some of your mega-intelligence and explain why you think people who support social justice vote for right wing parties of no social justice?

Until you can, your farts are more intelligent than you.

Edited May 12, 2015 by eFestivals

[gary1979666]

Although I agree with the most of what you're saying Neil, there is a group (no idea the size) who voted UKIP, who are left leaning, just don't really think of it that way. I guess the old school labour voters who think immigration is an issue. And aside from some tactical voting (not massive amounts - i.e. voted LD instead of Tory) then the left to right / vice versa swings will be minimal.

[eFestivals]

Although I agree with the most of what you're saying Neil, there is a group (no idea the size) who voted UKIP, who are left leaning, just don't really think of it that way.

Perhaps there is, perhaps their isn't. Who knows what those types are thinking? They might think themselves left-wing, but what they voted for shows they're not.

But anyway, Tony made it clear before the vote that he wouldn't accept anything of UKIPs argument onto 'his side' of the argument. Even a mention by me that some people had a problem with immigration had him calling me a UKIPer.

Whatever it was they were voting for, they didn't vote UKIP because we don't have PR. They voted UKIP because they support UKIP's right-wing policies to a large extent.

[feral chile]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/10/traumatised-by-the-election-result-a-psychotherapists-recovery-guide?CMP=share_btn_fb

[fred quimby]

We don't really have any way to vote for genuine change. All parties have to shore up capitalism.

If voting really changed anything they would ban it

Ken Livingstone

[eFestivals]

Soooo full of shit!

and you're so full of a counter argument.

Oh, no, my mistake. You're not.

[eFestivals]

If voting really changed anything they would ban it

Ken Livingstone

It's true.

The great stitch-up, 1832.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_Act_1832

Preceded by riots, and the stitch-up was supposed to address the rioters wants and not stitch them up.

And so we have to work from within a system that's designed to work against us - and the lack of solidarity of opposition plays straight into their hands.

And then for the brief moments that 'the people' get to hold some power, it all breaks down in squabbling over crumbs before implementing any meaningful change, or alternatively, they become the same power-corrupted anti-democrats as they were meant to replace and no meaningful change happens.

In any democracy where a majority in some form is required, the reason for the left's failure is about much more than a specific implementation of a version of democracy.

[5co77ie]

lovin the new ministers:

Part One:

Caroline Dinenage is a Tory MP who previously said the state had “no right” to redefine marriage, and who voted against same-sex marriage, and has just been appointed minister for equalities.

Priti Patel, new Minister of State at the Department for Work and Pensions, told the BBC’s Question Time programme in 2011 that she would support the reintroduction of the death penalty because she believed it would act as a deterrent to crime.

The new minister for disabled - Justin Tomlinson whose history shows a severe lack of support for the disabled with a strong record of voting against the interests of sick and disabled claimants and voted in favour of repealing the Human Rights Act.

Edited May 12, 2015 by 5co77ie