Current Affairs The Labour Party

[tsubaki]

The Labour Party has been around for 123 years, and has been in power for just over 30 of those years, and 13 of those were “New Labour” under Blair/Brown.

Considering we hear that the basics of the Labour Party - proper rights for workers, a progressive tax system - are consistently supported by a majority of the electorate, you have to wonder why we’re always stuck with Tory rule.

The answer is seen in this thread, that the left are constantly waiting for the perfect party to pop up, and end up voting or abstaining against their own interests.

Being ideological and principled is all well and good, but looking from the sidelines commenting about how the country really should be run, from a position of opposition is a mugs game, and conceding the ground to a Tory party who know that the real game is to get in power first and worry about getting the ideal party you want second, means that the country pays the price.

I think a big part of the problem - and I apologise in advance for repeating something often posted by myself here - is that the Labour Party is itself an attempt to operate in a corrupted system, so it will never work as a political party in the way we understand it.

Prior to 1834 and the foundation of the modern Tory Party, politics was still pretty localised with the electorate (such as it was) returning a local worthy, who then went on to Parliament where there was very little pressure on them to do anything except vote along with their consciences (such as they were at the time). Most of them were not in government, and so aside from personal relations and the common beliefs they shared as a group there were no whips, no pressure on selections (except locally), no fundraising and no national political structure or programme. This was by no means ideal but it is how our political system is meant to work, even to this day - we don't vote for parties or national figures (except in their own constituencies), we vote for individual people representing that area.

Once the Tories were effectively founded in 1834, the pressure was always on them to stick together whilst the non-Tory vote had to be fractured, so we saw various forms of Libs, Labour itself, the decline of the Libs and the fracturing of Labour under MacDonald, the rise of the Nats, the SDLP, UKIP and so on. All bought into the idea of disciplined political parties and as a result protected and reinforced the Tory vote by splitting up "the rest". 35-40% of Tories in any constituency can beat the rest and often does.

What Starmer needs to do is to push the political system back into the way it is designed to work - not via any form of PR (which will if anything cement the Tories as the party of government), but by dismantling the structure that sustains national parties.

A prospective parliamentary candidate must only stand on their own - no national funding, no selection except locally (with interference being a criminal offence), no national programme. When they become MP it must be a serious criminal offence for anyone to try and influence their vote by improper means (as in a constituent contacting them would be allowed; a lobbyist, another MP or a whip / government minister offering rewards or threatening punishment would not be). They should not be allowed to sit together in groups; seating in the Commons should be based on constituency. No government should be formed unless it has the genuine confidence of the majority of the Commons.

Doing this should, quite quickly, breed out the idiocy that has infested modern politics.

 

[Martin Alvito]

I think a big part of the problem - and I apologise in advance for repeating something often posted by myself here - is that the Labour Party is itself an attempt to operate in a corrupted system, so it will never work as a political party in the way we understand it.

Prior to 1834 and the foundation of the modern Tory Party, politics was still pretty localised with the electorate (such as it was) returning a local worthy, who then went on to Parliament where there was very little pressure on them to do anything except vote along with their consciences (such as they were at the time). Most of them were not in government, and so aside from personal relations and the common beliefs they shared as a group there were no whips, no pressure on selections (except locally), no fundraising and no national political structure or programme. This was by no means ideal but it is how our political system is meant to work, even to this day - we don't vote for parties or national figures (except in their own constituencies), we vote for individual people representing that area.

Once the Tories were effectively founded in 1834, the pressure was always on them to stick together whilst the non-Tory vote had to be fractured, so we saw various forms of Libs, Labour itself, the decline of the Libs and the fracturing of Labour under MacDonald, the rise of the Nats, the SDLP, UKIP and so on. All bought into the idea of disciplined political parties and as a result protected and reinforced the Tory vote by splitting up "the rest". 35-40% of Tories in any constituency can beat the rest and often does.

What Starmer needs to do is to push the political system back into the way it is designed to work - not via any form of PR (which will if anything cement the Tories as the party of government), but by dismantling the structure that sustains national parties.

A prospective parliamentary candidate must only stand on their own - no national funding, no selection except locally (with interference being a criminal offence), no national programme. When they become MP it must be a serious criminal offence for anyone to try and influence their vote by improper means (as in a constituent contacting them would be allowed; a lobbyist, another MP or a whip / government minister offering rewards or threatening punishment would not be). They should not be allowed to sit together in groups; seating in the Commons should be based on constituency. No government should be formed unless it has the genuine confidence of the majority of the Commons.

Doing this should, quite quickly, breed out the idiocy that has infested modern politics.

This is more or less what Hamilton and Madison also envisioned. I could argue with math that their expectation was naive in a first-past-the-post system, and that this explains why modern parties developed independently in both the US and UK well before the emergence of national media.

I get where you're coming from on PR in the UK. A mixed system such as multiple-member districts might help, or might not. The emergence of the Scottish National Party certainly stung Labour, by claiming a whole bunch of historically red seats. I don't know enough about present UK seat boundaries to recommend structural reforms enabling Labour to get a number of seats corresponding to its vote share in close elections, besides PR, but I see why you think that's a bad idea.

I don't think it's realistic to ban coordination between politicians. I do think that the single biggest problem is campaign finance, on both sides of the pond. The demise of Tip O'Neill's maxim that all politics is local is a huge problem, but it's also a hard one to solve. Reality is that people in the 1950s in the US had a whole lot more free time than people today, and they didn't have the same entertainment options. They socialized in person, across socio-economic backgrounds and political views. They didn't live in political silos, the way they do today, served by national media with an agenda.

If you want one man's opinion, the interest group model of politics that developed in the United States ate Western democracy whole. It's not about just the money. It's also the fact that people in many democracies today view politics as a zero-sum game where the objective is to extract as many benefits as possible for their specific ethnic/gender/socio-economic/religious group. This directly contravenes of the purpose of a government, which is to provide stability, public goods the market undersupplies and corrections for market failures. Doing those things requires a significant tax burden, and a strong regulatory regime.

Fighting over one's slice of the current pie on social dimensions neglects growing the pie. George Carlin becomes more right with every passing day, in the sense that he would have contended that politics and media are just the means the rich use to distract us from the rich running off with all the money.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

I think a big part of the problem - and I apologise in advance for repeating something often posted by myself here - is that the Labour Party is itself an attempt to operate in a corrupted system, so it will never work as a political party in the way we understand it.

Prior to 1834 and the foundation of the modern Tory Party, politics was still pretty localised with the electorate (such as it was) returning a local worthy, who then went on to Parliament where there was very little pressure on them to do anything except vote along with their consciences (such as they were at the time). Most of them were not in government, and so aside from personal relations and the common beliefs they shared as a group there were no whips, no pressure on selections (except locally), no fundraising and no national political structure or programme. This was by no means ideal but it is how our political system is meant to work, even to this day - we don't vote for parties or national figures (except in their own constituencies), we vote for individual people representing that area.

Once the Tories were effectively founded in 1834, the pressure was always on them to stick together whilst the non-Tory vote had to be fractured, so we saw various forms of Libs, Labour itself, the decline of the Libs and the fracturing of Labour under MacDonald, the rise of the Nats, the SDLP, UKIP and so on. All bought into the idea of disciplined political parties and as a result protected and reinforced the Tory vote by splitting up "the rest". 35-40% of Tories in any constituency can beat the rest and often does.

What Starmer needs to do is to push the political system back into the way it is designed to work - not via any form of PR (which will if anything cement the Tories as the party of government), but by dismantling the structure that sustains national parties.

A prospective parliamentary candidate must only stand on their own - no national funding, no selection except locally (with interference being a criminal offence), no national programme. When they become MP it must be a serious criminal offence for anyone to try and influence their vote by improper means (as in a constituent contacting them would be allowed; a lobbyist, another MP or a whip / government minister offering rewards or threatening punishment would not be). They should not be allowed to sit together in groups; seating in the Commons should be based on constituency. No government should be formed unless it has the genuine confidence of the majority of the Commons.

Doing this should, quite quickly, breed out the idiocy that has infested modern politics.

It would seem part of the problem is that Labour's core supporters are happy to live in an alternative reality rather than the one that actually exists. That way they can persist with their notion that their ideas would receive widespread support if only it wasn't for the media or the corrupt system, and when Labour do make it into government it's via a Blair or a Starmer who are little better than the rest.

It also conveniently overlooks the fact that government spending as a percentage of GDP in 1834 was about 10%. Government back then did less than even the most ardent Libertarian bedwetter would propose today. The government of the day spent a few billion quid (in today's money), so could afford to be run by a bunch of local hobbyists. Even Hobbes wouldn't have dreamed of the state growing to the size it is today.

 

[magicjuan]

This is the crux of Labour's problem though. Yes the unions are a significant and important funder and historically labour has been for the unionised 'workers' (from miners to teachers and academics, its never been the 'working class'). But that support doesn't win power alone. Which is where the uneasy relationships and moves away from that constituency's interests come in and, in turn, cause tensions like we're discussing now.

It's a serious question - would a new party based on unionist interests get near power?

I don't necessarily like the answer either. But I currently don't see another way forward to oust this horrific Government.

I think the tories will get back in. As for support for union policies, it was labour right wingers that stopped Corbyn winning, not the tories. There's an element of 'knowing exactly what you get' with the tories as well as the nationalist jingo of an age that didn't exist.
The 'democracy' we have is totally unfit for 21st century and only those who benefit the most tell you it is.
We are one huge rotten borough and this perpetuating of the cycle serves no one but the system.
It isn't just this government we have to oust, we have to dismantle and rebuild the entire political process, but, being lragmatic, I understand the appetite isn't there among most people, who, as Brits, are happy with their lot as long as Johnny Foreigner doesn't try to climb the ladder.
It's all just an effing ballache....

 

[tsubaki]

It would seem part of the problem is that Labour's core supporters are happy to live in an alternative reality rather than the one that actually exists. That way they can persist with their notion that their ideas would receive widespread support if only it wasn't for the media or the corrupt system, and when Labour do make it into government it's via a Blair or a Starmer who are little better than the rest.

It also conveniently overlooks the fact that government spending as a percentage of GDP in 1834 was about 10%. Government back then did less than even the most ardent Libertarian bedwetter would propose today. The government of the day spent a few billion quid (in today's money), so could afford to be run by a bunch of local hobbyists. Even Hobbes wouldn't have dreamed of the state growing to the size it is today.

Not sure about this at all - I mean, lots of Labour policies do enjoy wide support and they are widely opposed by the media and the people who’d lose out. Would any honest politician look at PFI or rail “privatisation” and think they were sensible ways of managing the public purse?

As for 1834, yes the state was a lot smaller then but it got far more value out of what it did spend. The modern state is horrifically bloated, with inefficiencies and waste having ballooned since 2010 especially and our foreign policy looming towards a disaster.

This is happening because the people who are meant to oversee the state - MPs - are deliberately compromised out of the position we need them to be in. If this country is ever going to recover, that has to change urgently.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Not sure about this at all - I mean, lots of Labour policies do enjoy wide support and they are widely opposed by the media and the people who’d lose out. Would any honest politician look at PFI or rail “privatisation” and think they were sensible ways of managing the public purse?

As for 1834, yes the state was a lot smaller then but it got far more value out of what it did spend. The modern state is horrifically bloated, with inefficiencies and waste having ballooned since 2010 especially and our foreign policy looming towards a disaster.

This is happening because the people who are meant to oversee the state - MPs - are deliberately compromised out of the position we need them to be in. If this country is ever going to recover, that has to change urgently.

That was the era of workhouses and no national health service. To say that was alright because it was value for money when we howl to the moon about spending increases today that don't keep pace with inflation seems rich in the extreme.

 

[magicjuan]

Not sure about this at all - I mean, lots of Labour policies do enjoy wide support and they are widely opposed by the media and the people who’d lose out. Would any honest politician look at PFI or rail “privatisation” and think they were sensible ways of managing the public purse?

As for 1834, yes the state was a lot smaller then but it got far more value out of what it did spend. The modern state is horrifically bloated, with inefficiencies and waste having ballooned since 2010 especially and our foreign policy looming towards a disaster.

This is happening because the people who are meant to oversee the state - MPs - are deliberately compromised out of the position we need them to be in. If this country is ever going to recover, that has to change urgently.

Labour policies like the NHS, set working hours , weekends, sick pay all came about through union representation and never really promoted as such because unionism or collectivism is bad, ever since dear Margaret said so. Prime human base fears and greed are what passes for policy these days.

 

[magicjuan]

That was the era of workhouses and no national health service. To say that was alright because it was value for money when we howl to the moon about spending increases today that don't keep pace with inflation seems rich in the extreme.

And we are edging closer to that in 21st century comparables.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

And we are edging closer to that in 21st century comparables.

See @tsubaki ? We spend about 40x as much as the supposed golden era of government and it's still deemed to be inferior.

 

[Goat]

The Party of the people, for the people.

 

[Daveysgingerlovechild]

I think the tories will get back in. As for support for union policies, it was labour right wingers that stopped Corbyn winning, not the tories. There's an element of 'knowing exactly what you get' with the tories as well as the nationalist jingo of an age that didn't exist.
The 'democracy' we have is totally unfit for 21st century and only those who benefit the most tell you it is.
We are one huge rotten borough and this perpetuating of the cycle serves no one but the system.
It isn't just this government we have to oust, we have to dismantle and rebuild the entire political process, but, being lragmatic, I understand the appetite isn't there among most people, who, as Brits, are happy with their lot as long as Johnny Foreigner doesn't try to climb the ladder.
It's all just an effing ballache....

So what you're saying here is that the labour party / traditional support base itself wasn't entirely sold on Corbyn. I think? So a move to perhaps appease an influential wing is now upsetting the other wing.

Then maybe Labour should split. If there's no happy medium or road coalition it'll be as bad as the circus we have under this Conservative government.

The political system is not changing in a hurry. I'm afraid the left arm of the Labour Party in a new guise might find itself shouting from the sidelines for a while though. Barring a coalition, which would be uneasy in all likelihood.

But being totally honest, all I see is Starmers Labour stopping things getting any worse at best. The big irony with Blairs Labour was that the So called 'third way' still saw inequalities widen. My view is they just slowed the pace. 13 years of Tory rule have accelerated the pace and size of the gap.

It's a truly unappetising position to be in.

 

[davek]

The Party of the people, for the people.

Big 'kin deal.

They sit at the head of a party that won't even wipe charitable status from private academies or wipe out student debt.

 

[roydo]

Big 'kin deal.

They sit at the head of a party that won't even wipe charitable status from private academies or wipe out student debt.

Dont care about charitable status personally; if you are daft enough to spend gazillions on "superior" education, more fool you. But why should I pay for other folks kids to go to university? My lad, (30), and his mates see the repayment of the loan as a very very small part of their outgoings.

 

[davek]

Dont care about charitable status personally; if you are daft enough to spend gazillions on "superior" education, more fool you. But why should I pay for other folks kids to go to university? My lad, (30), and his mates see the repayment of the loan as a very very small part of their outgoings.

These are retreats made by the former 'Labour' Party.

 

[roydo]

These are retreats made by the former 'Labour' Party.

So what? They are irrelevant as a political issue to all but about 6 people in the UK. Might get some applause in a meeting, but utterly irrelevant.