The election 2015

What has happened to Labour is similar to what has happened to the Republicans in the US. But in fact the same thing has been happening in all the old political parties. They have been hollowed out and the ordinary membership has been allowed, encouraged even, to leave. The difference in Labour is that not everyone has decided to leave, the hard left stayed on and now they have gained enough power to be the tail wagging the Labour dog and the Tea Party has achieved something similar.

Political parties don't want foot soldiers any more to knock on doors, at least they think they don't. They don't need church gate collections, bingo sessions or weekly draws to fund them because now they get funding from the State. The rest of their money comes from tycoons. And the last think they want is party members to be saying what they actually think or putting forward awkward motions at annual conference, whichhas become instead a ritual act of homage to the great leader. MPs have no interest in enduring meetings of the faithful in draughty rooms where Mrs Smith is banging on for the umpteenth time about the vandalism in her area and Mr Smith is telling the tale of his latest dreary episode of indifferent treatment at the hands of the NHS. And to be frank, neither do the rest of us. Even when we agree with what is being said it is all just too boring.

All the parties need, or think they need, are a core of bright young people to do some research and help with speech writing, and in time these helpers will be the ones who go on to win party nominations for seats in parliament.

Parties are losing contact with the people and the people are losing contact with politics, which leaves us vulnerable to takeover by sectional interests and extremists, who are on the rise everywhere.
 
Last edited:
True to some extent but if you allow the committed members (nutters) to control the elections of leaders and even dictate policy (which is now being proposed within labour) then you are asking for trouble. Leave the leadership to those representing those who voted. Labour is possibly in a worse position than the republicans because the far left want idealogical purity, obedience and protest.

The labour our vote for corbyn was less than 2% of those that voted for the party. Or in other words 98% of voters have no say

fact is whenever a party disappears up itself then the vacuum is filled. The danger is that it all becomes too easy for Hilary and the tories and they can get complacent
 
gigilo said:
Don't agree withl that the next election is lost for labour at all it all depends on corbyn getting botted out quick enough as I said above,a government nobody particularly likes just poor alternatives alternatives,labour haemmoraged votes to ukip they are easily won back by someone like dan Jarvis and the votes tories gain from the don't knows,he would pick up droves of votes plus his policies would be pretty centralist bar tax which should never be afraid to use if you're other policies are decent.
Click to expand...

thats the interesting battle though isn't it? It's a clear demonstration that the hard left will back corbyn right over a cliff because this is idealogical and nothing to do with winning or delivering. That's why the poll was so significant. To not lose support after the worst week any opposition leader has experienced is telling

thus will get worse. The only way they can depose of corbyn now is a mass cabinet resignation and refusal of the whip. It has been suggested that this is on the agenda but that will clearly be a case of facing down the so called members

on the other hand they simply cannot go into the election unde a leader they dislike so intensely. I believe that the contempt will increase too

what they need in Oldham is an extremely narrow victory. The candidate is a star by all accounts so deserves to win over a ukip twit but the shock is essential.
 
The labour our vote for corbyn was less than 2% of those that voted for the party. Or in other words 98% of voters have no say
Click to expand...

Since when did the public get to choose party leaders, you're going up a blind alley here. 2% is actually a huge electorate compared to those electing the leaders in the other parties.

The problem for Labour is they've been trying to democratise the party in the middle of an era when the general membership of all political parties (not just Labour), has been heading for the exits. It's a big dilemma because the alternative is to let big business take over politics.
 
Grey said:
What has happened to Labour is similar to what has happened to the Republicans in the US. But in fact the same thing has been happening in all the old political parties. They have been hollowed out and the ordinary membership has been allowed, encouraged even, to leave. The difference in Labour is that not everyone has decided to leave, the hard left stayed on and now they have gained enough power to be the tail wagging the Labour dog and the Tea Party has achieved something similar.

Political parties don't want foot soldiers any more to knock on doors, at least they think they don't. They don't need church gate collections, bingo sessions or weekly draws to fund them because now they get funding from the State. The rest of their money comes from tycoons. And the last think they want is party members to be saying what they actually think or putting forward awkward motions at annual conference, whichhas become instead a ritual act of homage to the great leader. MPs have no interest in enduring meetings of the faithful in draughty rooms where Mrs Smith is banging on for the umpteenth time about the vandalism in her area and Mr Smith is telling the tale of his latest dreary episode of indifferent treatment at the hands of the NHS. And to be frank, neither do the rest of us. Even when we agree with what is being said it is all just too boring.

All the parties need, or think they need, are a core of bright young people to do some research and help with speech writing, and in time these helpers will be the ones who go on to win party nominations for seats in parliament.

Parties are losing contact with the people and the people are losing contact with politics, which leaves us vulnerable to takeover by sectional interests and extremists, who are on the rise everywhere.
Click to expand...

Very good post, Art.
 
Grey said:
The problem for Labour is they've been trying to democratise the party in the middle of an era when the general membership of all political parties (not just Labour), has been heading for the exits. It's a big dilemma because the alternative is to let big business take over politics.
Click to expand...

The problem really is that they thought widening democratic participation would increase interest and membership. Only those inside the bubble intoxicated on their own self-regard could form such a view. A vast majority of people simply don't give a damn but will pass a judgement every 5 years. The next thing you'll see rolling out from this is candidate selection
 
Grey said:
Since when did the public get to choose party leaders, you're going up a blind alley here. 2% is actually a huge electorate compared to those electing the leaders in the other parties.

The problem for Labour is they've been trying to democratise the party in the middle of an era when the general membership of all political parties (not just Labour), has been heading for the exits. It's a big dilemma because the alternative is to let big business take over politics.
Click to expand...


Christ you really don't get it do you.

the mps represent the voters. They largely know what the opinions are out there. They want to get elected . The members do not. They are idealogues. Members are dominated by fanatics and it's clear what's happened with labour

labour is finished

as for "big business" no problem with trade unions then.?
 
Last edited:
Warbler said:
The problem really is that they thought widening democratic participation would increase interest and membership. Only those inside the bubble intoxicated on their own self-regard could form such a view. A vast majority of people simply don't give a damn but will pass a judgement every 5 years. The next thing you'll see rolling out from this is candidate selection
Click to expand...
Yes this is more like it. Deselection is clearly on the agenda and the drive is towards "purity"

however a huge number of voters do give a damn and will vote labour but will not feel obliged to have to join anything. Rightly they believe that their options are open

its entirely wrong to believe that only this who join parties have a strong interest in politics
 
Last edited:
Tax Credit cuts scrapped - not even deferred.

A major climbdown for Osborne, but being sold as possible due to astute management of the economy. In practical terms, voters won't care about whether it's about political appeasement or not. The bottom-line is what's important to them - which means it's gone from being an electoral concern for the Tories, to a non-event.

He may face some braying from the Opposition and the Press about the turnaround, but Chancellors tend to have thick skin (requirement of the job, really), and Osborne will easily ride it out. He will view any hot-air as a fair exchange for removing the only genuine potential vote-loser for the Tories next time round. Corbyn will take care of everything else they need doing to secure victory.
 
Last edited:
Clever again. Wasn't expected

its a "ok we listen" message. Appeals to voters and stacks up nicely against what is rightly perceived as the hard line idealogy of the opposition.

I think they should be scrapped myself but not in the way they proposed.
 
clivex said:
its a "ok we listen" message. Appeals to voters and stacks up nicely against what is rightly perceived as the hard line idealogy of the opposition.

.
Click to expand...

Not a lot to do with the opposition, a victory for common sense more like.


I said he should change direction or just slow down the cuts a while ago.
 
Last edited:
Grey said:
All the parties need, or think they need, are a core of bright young people to do some research and help with speech writing, and in time these helpers will be the ones who go on to win party nominations for seats in parliament.
Click to expand...

The public want younger people - rightly or wrongly - to get involved in politics too.

The biggest thing parliament needs is people with a diverse range of life experiences, imo.
 
Young people have no "life experiences" other than squeezing their plukes and pulling their plonkers.

They should be put to work in salt-mines, until they are old enough to stand their round at the bar.
 
Last edited:
Grasshopper said:
Young people have no "life experiences" other than squeezing their plukes and pulling their plonkers.

They should be put to work in salt-mines, until they are old enough to stand their round at the bar.
Click to expand...

Exactly. That's what I'm saying.

Give me an older person with a bit of life experience over the latest young person who bombs their way into parliament anyday.
 
Last edited:
clivex said:
Yes this is more like it. Deselection is clearly on the agenda and the drive is towards "purity"
Click to expand...

It's not just deselection;

Political parties of all persuasion need people to engage with them in order to lend them legitimacy. Without this, they start crumble. They need us more than we need them.

Politicians have been looking for ways of increasing democracy and imposing it on the population now for well over a decade in the face of falling turnouts and rising apathy

Postal voting
Devolved parliaments in Scotland, and Wales
Regional referenda (the North East failed)
City Mayors (most have been rejected)
100,000 e-petitions to get us to debate something
Police commissioner elections
The Localism Bill for planning issues
The Big Society
The supposed democratisation of schools (the move that allows Muzzy Trojan horses to take over)
Party structures OMOV in return for £3
They never adopted it of course, but polling booths in supermarkets was another idea they've scoped out
The "army of armchair auditors"

The bottom line is most people don't give a s hit and have concluded you're pretty well going to do whatever you want anyway. What it has done though, is make whole tiers of societal governance vulnerable to small organised minority takeovers
 
Last edited:
clivex said:
Clever again. Wasn't expected

its a "ok we listen" message. Appeals to voters and stacks up nicely against what is rightly perceived as the hard line idealogy of the opposition.

I think they should be scrapped myself but not in the way they proposed.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure this isn't an example of the victory for an opposition which you've been opining Clive? Let me put it another way. If a Blairite Labour party had committed to the proposed changes in tax credits would Osborne have backed down? I doubt he would. His calculation would be that he could present his proposals as something that had cross party support and therefore no one would have any need to consider voting Labour

If he is really cunning of course, he could be calculating that handing Corbyn a victory strengthens his position within Labour making it harder to remove him. In four years time none of the important floating voters will even remember this.

In the meantime they can dress it up as the listening and repsonding government. It's vaguely reminescent of the approval John Major got when he scrapped the poll tax, and replaced it with the council tax!
 
Last edited:
Like I say, only the chattering-classes care about the minutiae of the technicalities.........the Proles only care about the bottom-line.

The only victory that counts is in the General Election - everything else willy-waggling on the run-up to one. By the time the next GE comes around, the Tax Credit issue will be long-forgotten, and the electorate will be worrying about something else.

Any claim of victory by Labour in this matter, would be somewhat pyrrhic.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't put it like that. I fact there is a fair bit of research that clearly and rightly indicates that credibility is far more important than "bottom line" . Simply put a chancellor could give free beer all day long and zero income tax And in truth it could be implemented successfully as the Greeks have shown and the eu has endorsed



thats a great bottom line for many but frankly the vast majority of voters would have the chancellor down as a wnkr
 
Last edited:
Warbler said:
I'm not so sure this isn't an example of the victory for an opposition which you've been opining Clive? Let me put it another way. If a Blairite Labour party had committed to the proposed changes in tax credits would Osborne have backed down? I doubt he would. His calculation would be that he could present his proposals as something that had cross party support and therefore no one would have any need to consider voting Labour

If he is really cunning of course, he could be calculating that handing Corbyn a victory strengthens his position within Labour making it harder to remove him. In four years time none of the important floating voters will even remember this.

In the meantime they can dress it up as the listening and repsonding government. It's vaguely reminescent of the approval John Major got when he scrapped the poll tax, and replaced it with the council tax!
Click to expand...

i am not sure it's a pro or con in truth and I really don't go for these theories about keeping corbyn in power. They want him there of course but bit too tricky to try and manufacture it.
 
clivex said:
I wouldn't put it like that. I fact there is a fair bit of research that clearly and rightly indicates that credibility is far more important than "bottom line"
Click to expand...

I don't disagree.

My "bottom-line" was in the context of Tax credits being applied or not-applied. It's only if you lose-out that it becomes an issue for you. Otherwise you are neutral on the subject, and consider other things (such as the credibility of the Government versus the Opposition) before casting your vote.
 
Last edited:
To be fair to him he's made a good decision.

Austerity made sense when government funds were spunked all over the place under the last government..but he's found the middle ground between brutal cutting and actually allowing public services to pay their bills. I look forward to seeing how the next five years pans out.
 
Last edited:
John McDonnell apparently quoting direct from Mao's Little Red Book, in his response to the Chancellor's autumn statement.

You couldn't make it up.
 
I just went to the news story. I will honestly say that it was one of those very rare moments when I am completely speechless... I haven't watched it yet but fcking hell

As An aside someone did write that labour has killed the satire industry.

have to say osbournes response was quick


watched it now. Bizarre but it gave George the perfect opportunity to grandstand. Corbyn and mcdonell look two cider drinkers on a park bench. They are knackered
 
Last edited:
marble said:
To be fair to him he's made a good decision.

Austerity made sense when government funds were spunked all over the place under the last government..but he's found the middle ground between brutal cutting and actually allowing public services to pay their bills. I look forward to seeing how the next five years pans out.
Click to expand...

there is also the element of preparing the ground for doom and gloom and not being so tough on the day. An old trick
 
Back
Top