Printable View
The same thing applies to Britain, as it does all over Europe, but not living there means I don't have examples at hand.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Rich people don't like living in industrial areas with industry, no, but they sure enjoy living in industrial areas once all the industry is knocked down.
What the parties agree on in principle is currently greater than what they disagree on which is where the difficulty lies from a marketing standpoint. What are the Unique Selling Points if everyone wants a fair society for all? Most (not all) conservatives want a meritocratic society (the remainder probably just want to keep their money and damn everyone else) and so currently do Labour it seems, having finally accepted that not everyone is exactly the same.
I suppose that the only difference tends to be the Tories invest in stretching the winners to excel (at least, that's the idea) and eventually reform the rest by either example or absorption, whereas Labour throw money at the loosers to help them improve (or at least that's the idea). But currently the coalition are giving schools over £400 per poor child which is the sort of thing that Labour would have done. Saying "We agree with the policy" doesn't garner a whole lot of votes.
~:smoking:
Indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Making Labour into the "Tories Light" gained them some votes in the short term, but then people realized that the difference between policies were minimal, the treshold for swapping party also became minimal. People who would've stuck by their party through the worst of scandals now go "Meh" and change at the first sight of uproar....
Which in some ways is a good thing - as we don't have at the moment a history of coalitions.
Previously, Labour voted Labour until the damage was so hideous that the IMF needed to bail us out (a first for a developed nation at the time), were down to a 3 day week with power shortages before people would think the "unthinkable" and vote for the other lot who was almost thrown out if it wasn't for the timely intervention of Argentina.
~:smoking:
awesome speech by MiliD on the apparent death of the left, why it has happened, and what to do about it:
http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-polit...parties-social
if labour listens to what he's saying they might have a chance of getting elected in 2015!Quote:
Left parties are losing elections more comprehensively than ever before. They are losing from government and from opposition; they are losing in majoritarian systems and PR systems; just for good measure they are losing whatever position the party had on the Iraq war; and they are fragmenting at just the time the right is uniting.
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave
Also; brown people
i take it dev-dave is saying that champagne-socialists have a hard time understanding the concerns of their working class electorate, or possibly that a wealthier electorate is less appreciative of social-democratic politics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
but with your comment i am stretching........... do you mean that pro-immigration policies commonly espoused by left-wing parties have back-fired because their core electorate, the poor working class, are the first to suffer under high immigration regimes?
I liked the monacleQuote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
I think Le Pen getting the vote in France and the breakdown of the progressive left are intertwined. In a welfare state you make some tradeoffs and one of those is usually a higher rate of unemployment. Add in a group of people whom are radically different than you, coming in mass numbers, in a financial breakdown and you get reactionary xenophobia which isn't very conducive to an old style socialist.Quote:
but with your comment i am stretching........... do you mean that pro-immigration policies commonly espoused by left-wing parties have back-fired because their core electorate, the poor working class, are the first to suffer under high immigration regimes?
Now, personally I think this threat is by in large imagined but it should come as no surprise that working class in Britian is much more apt to be swayed to right policies when there are barabrians on the border so to speak.
I thought he managed to say little in a lot of words. Lots of waffly phrases which are not particularly useful, and of course no costings of anything. Not once did he mention that perhaps basing anything on a decade of vast spending is somewhat flawed as the money runs out which in turn invalidates the whole model: I might have a transiently better life if I had a Mercedes S class in getting around and personal safety, but it is not a realistic solution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
I'm not saying the Right have all the answers either. Hence why we flip flop from one to the other as we get sick of the heartless Right and then sick of the spendthrift left; we hate postcode lotteries and monolithic systems such as NICE; support for all - but no rise in taxes... The list goes on where voters have no apparent insight or indeed interest over their small patch of immediate desires.
~:smoking:
Yeah, dave can say a lot with just a single generic smilie. :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
Is the progressive-left dead?
Yes.
All that happened is that the right also became progressive. Sadly for the progressive-left, the "left" part of their policies isn't really that relevant right to our concerns right now with massive debt etc. And now the right are progressive as well, the left can't rely on being progressive as a selling point.
As a result, they have been gobbled up from both sides by the more moderate centre-right on one hand, and the disillusioned far-right on the other.
I don't see a problem with "right" wing parties winning as long as they are not moronic when it comes to civil liberties or are not economic libertarians.
If the right wing in Europe is pro gay, pro women and recognizes that letting the bankers play with their economic equations without adult supervision is bad for the economy, then good for them.
The only area that is in serious danger of extreme right wing (I mean really right wing) takeover is the US.
The numbers in actual votes dont support that view how can the progressive left be gone, due to FPTP you merely have a moment here in time here where it looks weaker than it really is. If there was an election tomorrow you would still have a large Labour vote and it could even win, thats purely down to the way your constituencies are marked out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
The real squeeze is on centrism in my view and in the actual term "Left"
I think the wider picture has changed too much. We had the old (traditional, TU dominated) left and the old authoritarian right. Then we had the progressive left while the right remained authoritarian. But now the right has become progressive on social issues as well. Tories are as ACIN said pro-women, pro-gay rights etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy
It makes it redundant to talk of the left as if it you can identify it by its being progressive. All the mainstream parties are these days.
As Rory said, 100 years ago the left had an important role to play, we needed the minimum wage, and the unions. The thing is, the left won. Nobody wants to dismantle the welfare state. So the left changed its tune, it became the progressive left and identified more on social issues eg being liberal on social issues, pro-immigration etc.
But now the right is largely following these steps as well. It has left the progressive left with nothing to offer.
And the Right is also landed with nothing Rightist to offer either by the same token.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
And the main point is still that Labour still could pull off an election victory due to the various boundaries and the vagaries of your system.
So you gotta ask yourself why not left if the right follows there ideals???
Oh, I agree with you. The right doesn't offer anything unique in the sense of being progressive. The point is there is no longer any point in talking about a distinct progressive left. There is just the left.Quote:
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy
Why? Because the left won. Everyone became progressive. Often when parties are too successful, they remove the need for their own existence. Kind of like the recent difficulties facing the Social Democracts in Sweden. They were so successful from all those years in power that every party adopted their core policies, and it made them redundant.
That's kind of like what's happened with progressiveness and the left.
FPTP demonstrates that the Left can still field compelling candidates despite polling badly nationally.Quote:
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy
FPTP favours the Right because they attract personaslities, like Ken Clarke and Boris Johnson. The Left has a tendancy to favour people "on message" so they do well in proportional systems which favour the Party.
Ol' Wigferth wants to elect a man, not a corporation.
Extrapolating from that, the Left is having a bit of an identity issue right now for the reasons mentioned - but because of the type of parties the Left usually run they look worse off they are, and that perception is hurting them.
you must remember that he wasn't addressing us, he was addressing one of the thickest and most tribal demographic that exists anywhere: the labour trade-union core. he has to move gently.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk