By Now that the temporary euphoria surrounding the 'rogue-poll' has ceded, Labour must have the courage to continue asking itself the uncomfortable questions; why are people deserting us? And what can we do to get them back?
Often, the response is that the party needs to reconnect with its core vote, that it needs to reach out to those who feel abandoned. I absolutely agree. The problem is that any return to the 'core vote' is only ever conceived in economic terms. Whilst there is undoubtedly value in this strategy, it can only ever have limited impact, because it only ever addresses a limited part of the problem. The truth is that for those who feel alienated, pushed to the outside of public life, the dispossession is cultural every bit as much as it is economic. The establishment has embraced a bourgeois social ethic, and those at the bottom are fatigued, exhausted at having to defend themselves against the relentless onslaught of the sneering classes.
It is perhaps best, in order to illustrate the point, to take the vexatious issue of the racist BNP. Communities that have been staunch Labour strongholds for generations appear to have suddenly transformed into 'far-right' groupings overnight. The terminology is misleading though, because in reality there has been no such fundamental shift in political ideology from centre-left to far-right; rather, the very same people who once voted Labour chose to hold their noses and vote for a racist party because it alone attempted to articulate their anxieties in a way that no other mainstream party attempted to do.
Whole communities feel dispossessed, trapped in a country that is changing at a rapid pace - a transformation that affects the poorest communities more than anyone else, but over which they feel they have had less of a say than anybody else. The predictable reaction of the metropolitan classes, to mourn the rise of racism as if all the voters were simply racist, to imply the electorate are too foolish to use their vote wisely ('and this is why we shouldn't have PR'), does little but demonstrate with crystal clarity precisely what it is people are angry about - 'these are our concerns, but none of you will listen'.
And of course they won't. Because at root this is a clash of cultures. What causes concern amongst the poorest can often be the same thing that is succour to the not-so-poor. What is new is that today's ruling classes now feel it is their duty to eradicate all that does not adhere to their own manner of seeing things, precisely in order to protect their own interests.
What I'm suggesting is that the disillusionment of the electorate is at least partly down to the fact the Labour Party has embraced an ideology that actively undermines the beliefs and culture of ordinary working people. Immigration, whilst the most topical, isn't the only battleground. One by one, it seems that the social and cultural outlook of many is scorned upon by an elite who, whilst laughably painting themselves as on the side of the 'oppressed', choose to studiously ignore this particular subjugation. On issues ranging from school/parental discipline ('child abuse'), to capital punishment ('barbaric'), to patriotism ('Little Englander'), to euro-scepticism ('xenophobic'), to immigration ('racist'), to morality ('bigoted') - across all these issues and more, the general beliefs of vast swathes of the electorate are demonised and ridiculed by an elite interested only in securing the dominance of their own particular worldview.
In essence, it often appears that the Labour Party has chosen to sacrifice its traditional roots in defence of a shiny new social creed it likes to call 'liberalism'. Truth is, the cultural underpinnings of this creed, originating in the post-1968 student 'resistance' movements, are thoroughly middle-class, individualistic and bourgeois - and except for those that are already 'free', it delivers anything but 'liberty'.
Thus, one can only look on with sadness at the relentless vilification of what Ferdinand Mount has called 'the Downers', their beliefs, their habits, their customs, their social codes. The tragedy is that, were those in power to open their eyes for just one moment, they would see in the faces of the demonised those with whom they once stood shoulder to shoulder in pursuit of a better world.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
And why is this being done to repay the Banking debt, so you hit the poorest a so called labour government. people will have to vote with the old head from now on not your heart. which I think is a good thing in politics. I see brown now as I saw Thatcher, with luck out of power.
And worst of all democracy has all but been destroyed under their watch.
"Money compensates ; it does not motivate"
Money motivates me, if I wasn't paid I wouldn't go to work.
If I was told my pay was to be cut 25% I'd leave my job
When I apply for a job I don't accept £200 a day it's £400 a day minimum or I don't do the job.
Money motivates and to think otherwise means you don't know many freelancers or consultants.
In the Sunday Times today re. rules around tax havens:
"Despite the tightening of the rules, tax havens appear to be as popular as ever. Trevor Gabriel, who runs Monaco Villas, a property company in Monaco, said: “The British population in Monaco has doubled in the past 20 years and there is no sign of that slowing down.” He said in addition to its low tax regime, Monaco was clean, secure and well connected."
People who can move do move, certainly upon retirement. Zac Goldsmith is a non dom and quite rightly so, why stay in the UK and pay excessive taxation when you can base yourself abroad and pay far less?
"Money motivates and to think otherwise means you don't know many freelancers or consultants."
Apart from the fact that 'consultant' is one of the most over-used words these days, and a travesty compared with the proper consultants I have worked for in the past (Consulting Engineers, whose partnerships used to accept professional and unlimited liability for the work that they perform in the event that things 'go wrong'), I don't know many so-called 'consultants' these days. As a matter of interest, what's your 'professional liability', Guy? Do you take out professional indemnity insurance as part and parcel of your work?
You are in the wrong job if 'money motivates you.' You could earn squillions more working for Goldman Sachs, and lots more by just working 'in the City.'
Now, as far as Mr Goldsmith is concerned, you omitted to tell us that the same article said that he would renounce his non-dom status next year because of his political ambitions.
"Now, as far as Mr Goldsmith is concerned, you omitted to tell us that the same article said that he would renounce his non-dom status next year because of his political ambitions."
As all of his property is held in trust and not actually his I doubt he'll be too bothered.
Tell me though do you see swathes of non doms rushing back to the UK to pay high taxes just to help dear old Gordon out?
By the way, do you know why our tax year has those funny start-end dates? all to do with those eleven days that they lost a couple of centuries ago : some taxes were due on the March 'Quarter Day' and they moved the remittal day on by 11 days. Something like that, anyway. :), even to you : "Love thine enemy" or something of that ilk ....
£150,000 it may be but how long before it's lowered?
Anyway at £100,000 you lose all your personal allowances so the marginal rate is far higher
That's why I say I won’t work past 100k as I end up with a marginal rate of around 61%, which is so incredibly fair and a great incentive isn't it?
Most people aren't scientists, most people have a career where they aspire to improve their lot in life.
I can assure you that if you tax the top 10% of wage earners significantly higher then a lot won't stay in the UK or put in as many hours.
The majority of that old ABC1 group vote Tory, the party of low tax ideals, what do you think that implies about their desire to pay less tax?
When freelancing I use every trick in the book to reduce my tax liability, to the extent that I pay significantly less tax than I would if a permanent employee. If I could get it lower still I would.
In my view a lot of the ABC1 people vote Conservative because they believe that the Tory party is anti-European and pro-business in the sense that it is more likely to supply business interests with lower business related taxes, less red tape and much lower social costs as per progressive advances like the minimum wage, shorter working weeks, more paid holidays, flexible working hours, maternity and paternity leave, health and safety and so on. The less given to the poor the more there is to be given to the rich. This might put a smile on your face, Guy, but to me, especially at a time like this, it would be a despicable course of action to take.
Whatever.
If any money is available for tax cuts or other purposes it should go to help the lower rate tax payers not the upper or proposed top rate tax payers. Help should go to those who are struggling the most not to those struggling the least in society.
At least consider giving the struggling Bob Cratchit a raise so that he can finally afford a coat to keep the cold out and keep his family nourished, warm and comfortable over the winter? Other than that have a happy Christmas, Ebenezer! And keep an eye out for three ghosts who have made an appointment to interview you sometime around Christmas Eve.
Personally, after I'm dead, I'd rather be remembered as an honourable and compassionate kind of a bloke who tried his best to do more good than harm during the course of his life than simply as the richest corpse in the cemetery.
Get yourself a life, Guy, before that becomes your fate.
X
There should also have been some group close to the heart of power keeping an eye on how technological & social changes have been & are impacting on the finances of Britain's poor.
NewLab, like the Tories, have demanded an ever more "flexible" workforce but failed to see that this has applied far more to the low paid end than any other. And it has failed singularly to rein in the financial sector which both preys on & is highly prejudiced against people on low incomes or state benefits. With the recession there are going to be a lot more discovering these problems. How will Labour begin to address these real issues?
Sorry to grump Ralph, but how do we get a sense of belonging from a constitutuon without facing up to things which set us apart from you? Can you put a Post Bank in a constitution? Can you make it illegal for utilities to charge their poorest customers higher rates than the better off? Will you end the usury that the poorest suffer on their little loans? What?
"GuyM, or AB1, I suppose you bake your own bread, and rid yourself of your own rubbish. Or had you planned this and have a cache of food all wrapped in biodegradable wrappers so as to have no other waste but effluence. And your own generator for power, running on stored fuel. Then i was going to ask about where you rid yourself of effluence, and i thought he is brilliant, he dumps it here disguised as words. So now i readily believe you can shut yourself away from society, living with no help from anyone."
The economic value in employing someone to take my rubbish away is, it seems, significantly less than the economic value of what I do for my employer.
You may not like that but the reality is that a large % of the country could be dustmen, but could not be in senior professional roles.
Therefore by my reckoning I not only deserve to be paid more than if I was collecting rubbish but also I should keep most of benefit.
You though fit the model of "politics of envy" exceptionally well and support the stereotypical view of Labour as being unable to understand business.
In my view a written Constitution would do this, if all the people were allowed to take part in its formartiom via referendum.
Otherwise I cannot think of any other platform that is constructive that will permit us to cement our identity and sense of belonging.
If this is the vehicle to do it then yes. If a Labour party does it then it can embody recognition and support for those who are less well off.
Unfortunately I'm only able to comment on here intermittently due to family commitments.But I do read the comments when I can!
If we all set out to live in isolation and ignore others, society would break down.
I've noticed cultural differnces by visiting countries like France and those in Scandinavia. There is a sense of community and co operation- across all generations- and passed on to the young.Citezens seem to have a sense of ownership of how they want things to be done in their own backyard- but very much a shared consensus.
Conversely some years ago- I visited America- and although a great experience, I was shocked by the vast gaps between the rich and poor- eg on the streets of New York. It was like 3rd world poverty in the richest nation of the world.
I believe passionately that we all need to engage in building a better future, by rebuilding communities, and connecting to each other, regardless of so called class.It's about belonging to the human race, and connecting to our neighbors.
Look how barriers are broken down during times of crisis- like the London bombings, or the 2 World Wars.They are a reminder of our humanity.
I don't want our lives to be dominated by materialistic values and individualism alone- this is short sighted.
I agree completely, we need to rally together with a common culture.
Original article:
"On issues ranging from school/parental discipline ('child abuse'), to capital punishment ('barbaric'), to patriotism ('Little Englander'), to euro-scepticism ('xenophobic'), to immigration ('racist'), to morality ('bigoted') - across all these issues and more, the general beliefs of vast swathes of the electorate are demonised and ridiculed by an elite interested only in securing the dominance of their own particular worldview."
And now the comments, kicked off by Mr M (apologies to all quoted for paraphasing for clarity):
"[I believe] Working and Middle classes don't mix, they don't share values, aspirations, lifestyles, priorities and social lives [and that statistics back up my view]" (further clarified in later posts)
Now this is not a view not everyone here would necessarily agree with, but represents a recognisable position for many middle-class (and yes, no doubt ABC1) folk, and is therefore valid. But this comment led directly to some of the following (selected) reactions:
"[You have] some very curious old fashioned, almost eugenic, beliefs"
"you view people who earn less than you to be an underclass of criminals"
and my personal favourite
"Your a hermit... [but you come across as a] selfcentred type person"
I appreciate some of these comments are based on previous exchanges outside this debate, but don't you think that these have proven EXACTLY WHAT THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE SAID WAS THE PROBLEM?
The idea that the flailing Labour Party could reconnect with the poor by giving across the board tax cut now, just as we are coming out of an historically deep recession before any kind of recovery has been embedded would not in my opinion be wise.
GuyM seems to believe that the rich deserve to be rich because they are rich.
I don't.
Hence my comment and its relevance to the article.
You just don't get it do you.
I believe in LOW TAX & SMALL GOVERNMENT for EVERYONE!!!!
In other words tax more people out of tax at the bottom end altogether, remove the 50% band and increase the threshold for the 40% band.
I am at a loss with some of you lot, what possible incentive is there for people to work harder if they are taxed heavily?
What incentive is there for me to either work more days as a consultant or seek a pay rise rather than increase in holiday when permanent if I get 50% of the extra work and benefit taken from me by the state?
What possible incentive is there for me to stay in the UK upon retirement to see a high tax on my pension and investments and then a large chunk taken away from my family in IHT when I die?
You can spout all the ideological stuff you want, but I'm interested in the reality of the fact that I and many others in my position will not work harder and harder if the majority of the benefit does not come to us.
The UK has a serious skills shortage which is forecast to only get worse. This is especially the case at senior levels. Having a tax regime that both disincentivises senior managers to work harder and also causes a net outflow of skilled staff (near 40% of overseas consultants who worked forme in the last 3 years have left the UK) will exacerbate the skills shortage.
It seems most of the left do not get business and don't live in the real world.
People will not waste precious time (because you can always get more money but time runs out), that could be used with family and social activities, instead working hard when the majority of the benefit is taken from them.
Currently I work as a software engineer. The longest time I've ever spent with a company was four years; usually I am hired to see through a particular project for six to eighteen months. At the moment I am employed by a large international company to work on embedded systems used to control Freeview and Freeesat personal video recorders. Financially I do pretty well. According to one of my friends, a General Practitioner, I earn substantially more than a medical doctor on average. Normally I am occupied plying my "trade" for ten or eleven months each year depending on what range of projects I get offered by various recruitment agencies I am associated with and who act as agents to secure me work.
Now, here's the thing. Whenever I work and for whoever pays me I always give 100%. If you gave me a tax cut it would make no difference to my performance or amount of effort I put in because I always work to my maximum capacity and always attempt to do the very best possible job with whatever resources are available to produce a product of the highest possible quality. I cannot do more or better than I already do and so a tax cut would produce no gain in respect to my own output over the year.
It is like this with almost all creative endeavours.
I'm far from poor and, as far as I am concerned, doing all right. I am happy to pay a decent proportion of my earnings in tax to live in a humane and civilised society. I have lived abroad and prefer the UK to any other country I have visited or stayed in. Lower tax rates in other countries would be no incentive for me to emigrate abroad. The UK is a good place to live and bring up children in. Tax cuts across the board favour the rich and are hence essentially unfair: ten percent to a top tax rate payer rewards them with a lot more cash in their pocket than the same cut to a minimum wage earner. Similarly, increases in indirect taxation like VAT are disproportionately damaging to the poor since they take no account of the disposable income of the individual.
To pay for tax cuts other programmes, almost certainly dedicated to protecting the poor, would have to be cut. Let me give you a concrete example culled from the USA.
One of G.W.Bush's "big" ideas were tax cuts across the board. In his televised debate with Al Gore Bush claimed that: "By far the vast majority of the help (from tax cuts) goes to help those at the bottom end of the economic ladder." In a way he wasn't lying: everybody did get a tax cut. In another way he was being disingenuous: to pay for a small tax cut to the poor welfare and other programs were slashed leaving such unfortunates much worse off than before. For concreteness let's consider the case of a single parent waitress earning $ 25,000 and a lawyer earning $ 250,000 a year. Under Bush's "reforms" the waitress received a tax cut of $ 365 in her income tax but lost $ 700 on after-school care for her children, lost $ 2,896 in Medicaid and lost $ 1,464 assistance towards her rent allowance because Bush cut the programmes that provided help to people like the waitress to pay for his tax cutting agenda. Overall then the waitress lost $ 4,695 while the lawyer, who on a quarter of a million dollars a year had no need to claim assistance from the State, received a $ 6,000 tax cut and lost nothing whatsoever.
In this country Gordon Brown's abolition of the 10p tax band simply to grab a headline in a few newspapers and appear, temporarily, as a tax cutter has left between half a million and a million of the poorest paid workers worse off despite being dragged, kicking and screaming, by his own MPs (on one of the few occasions they seemed to remember they had spines) into borrowing a huge sum of money to compensate some of the poorest people in the country further impoverished by Brown's so called "tax cutting reform".
I can understand tax cuts encouraging men and women doing piece work on the minimum wage to work faster so that they earn more, but my experience with people in the professions is that tax breaks do not act as carrots to make such people work harder or better. Would more money make a barrister a better barrister? Or a surgeon a better surgeon? Would higher salaries make MPs better MPs? Human beings can only work so hard and for so long after which no incentive, financial or otherwise, is capable of wringing more work out of them.
Tax cuts are infeasible now and for many years to come in any case due to the absolutely dire circumstances in which the country is currently mired. Buckle up Guy! We're both going to have to pay more direct and indirect taxation for the foreseeable future! But cheer up! If you buy a PVR when your region of the country goes digital, if I had anything to do with it at least the firmware will be reliable!
Excellent comment (re tax cuts).
You are right - motivation comes from within and the level of taxation - provided it stays within a 'reasonable' band is immaterial to personal effort.
When I was working in Saudi Arabia in the late 1970s (personal income tax = zero), one of the first things that I noticed was a vast range in the way that people applied themselves to their work. Some got away with doing as little as possible and some attacked their work with interest and relish. Some would leave on the dot at finishing time, some would stay over (no paid overtime applied) to finish their work for the day because they were truly interested in their work.
Money compensates ; it does not motivate.
@ Jeff and GuyM:
Well-written posts from both sides of the debate, so thank you. It is particularly interesting (for me at least) to note that you are both in similar situations (i.e. consulting in specialist knowledge sectors).
I think the economics of this debate are particularly interesting. I comletely agree with the comment that movements of +/- 1% of net salary will be more important at the bottom of the ladder than at the top, but at the same time I agree with the "incentivisation" point.
So how to reconcile these views? To be honest, I'm thinking as I'm writing...
At the top end, I would say this (from personal experience): bankers are not all millionaires. In fact most are not even close, but of those who are paid the higher salaries (by which I mean more or less any higher rate taxpaying banker, right up to the million-pound bonus earning ones) are expected to work whatever hours are necessary to get their job done, including weekends. Banks, like any private company, will always do their best to minimise operating costs, and if that means 1 person doing 2 jobs for 1.5x the money, then that will be what they do. The more you get paid, the more you are expected to do, and if that means putting in an "all-nighter", or of working every weekend, then so be it. I can almost hear the crocodile tears of LL readers from here, thinking of those unfortunate bankers crying into their champagne glasses about how many hours they have to do, but here is the point: ask most people how much more you would need to pay them to increase their hours from say 9-6 to 9-7, 9-8 and 9-9 EVERY day. Then add weekends. Most people will happily put hours in once in a while, but not continually, and will usually ask for an increasing amount of compensation, up to a point where they will say "no amount of money will make me do that". Tax the reward too heavily and that will happen sooner. So what? If banks' operating costs go up as a result then guess who will take the pain for them to protect their bottom line...
The bottom end is definitely at the forefront of the debate, both from the point above, but also in tax revenue, and here is the key point of this whole debate: because of the pyramidal structure of British earnings an additional 1% of tax on the base of the pyramid will always be worth much, much more to the Treasury than even 10% at the top. The debate around accountants, avoidance and "brain drain" are little more than details at this point, albeit a long-term issue for a responsible government to consider.
But at the same time, the very poorest will of course be held back by a fundamental cost of life, and taking a few 10s or 100s of pounds extra off some families could realistically force some over the edge. Most people are financially resilient, making do with what they have (the irresponsible borrowing binge of the last 5-10 years nonwithstanding), but there will always be a breaking point.
My potential solution is that every area (perhaps even by parish or local councils???) is given a "calculated minimum cost for living here". This amount would need to be produced consistently and be party-independent (but might form part of the election material in the event that we ever introduce local sales taxes which could, for example, locally increase this amount). Adjustments would need to be made for family, but I believe a fair basic figure could be arrived at (and published - this would of itself have a reconnecting effect on local politics and the poor). I envisage that this would be a fairly low number, which would only just allow the bare minimum of life's essentials, so most people would aspire to earning more than this to enjoy their own luxuries, but people who fail to earn that amount would be "topped up" (either via not taking tax or some form of post-tax benefit). Earning over that amount should then provide incentive enough that tax can be applied fairly, and without the fear of pushing people into penury.
My point around tax cuts is not that a tax cut per se improves incentives but a tax rise to say 50% decreases incentives.
Personally I intend to manage my work so that I don't go through the 100k mark (and lose my personal tax allowance so getting a marginal rate of 60%) either through contract rate or perm placement.
Sinply put I am not working to provide for other people. If you or anyone else wants to do that then fine, I don't. That view is exactly the same as most other consultants I know and who are now either abroad, looking to move abroad or using all sorts of avoidance schemes.
The fundamental difference in ours views is that as far as I'm concerned I educated myself (and paid for lots of it), built my career, managed my experience and choose the level and amount of work I do for MY benefit and not a family down the road.
I want to take the majority of the salary I earn and keep it myself and then I want to pass 100% of it on to my family when I die.
You say "tax cuts are unfair", I say tax cuts are extremely fair as they mean the people who actually did the work get to keep more of the pay for that work. Tax cuts directly reward effort rather than reward a dependency culture.
If the poorest in society and the low paid want anything more than the minimum safety net then let them get educated and trained and go earn it for themselves.
I was not put on this planet to make up for other peoples shortcomings and I will do everything in my power to ensure your like does not force me into a position where I am covering the failures and weaknesses of Labour’s core vote.
Without a note of sarcasm I wish you well.
Let me say clearly once again (as I have many times already) that I accept the need to pay taxes to fund a certain level of protection for the vulnerable in society and other services i.e. defence, that need to be provided at the national level.
The issue is the level of tax, not tax itself. The issue is also the size of the state and its responsibilities not whether the state should exist or not.
Your arguments would mark me not as a Tory but as an anarchist which I am definitely not. It goes to the heart of the left wing attack dog mentality that all Tories are evil, hard hearted demons looking to do some poor old lady out of her winter fuel allowance or something similar.
That is simplistic nonsense, but it enables some on the left to avoid having to deal with the real ideological divide i.e. that of just how far the state's activities and the benefit net should reach.
I am small state low tax, not no state no tax and to try to portray me otherwise reflects more on you than me.
With regard to social class and "mixing". I do not like the social traits of the underclasses nor most of the traits of the working classes. I have to say I also don't like the poncey social one upmanship of the middle classes and the "keeping up with the Jones'" attitude either. Perhaps I'm classless, which would be in keeping with my desire for society to leave me alone as much as possible.
To be blunt David I voluntarily removed myself from political life and would like nothing more than to feel reassured politicians and society would never bother me again. If I thought that, you'd not here from me again and I'd go and live out my remaining decades peacefully on my own.
The problem though is the left and socialism won't leave well alone and will keep "advising", "helping" and "guiding" me (and taxing me for the privilege of their "help") even when they know I'd like nothing better for them f off forever.
I wonder if you finally understand?
Guy, money is money, tax or privately earned. If you want more money, many others want more money too and like you they will do what they can to get it. That is why we have a "right" and a "left", two different groups who through taxation/non-taxation want to enrich themselves at the expense of the other.
Mewling about it because your side are currently not in power (yet) does not become you.
"Mewling about it because your side are currently not in power (yet) does not become you"
I am "mewling" about nothing, I have described the two fundamental points that make me a "conservative" i.e. lower taxation and a smaller state.
The ideological position that underoins that is a desire to be left alone to run my life without the state interfering. This also goes to the heart of my opposition to the DNA database for example.
@David
"i, understand perfectly your a hermit"
Yes I am, I have no need to involve myself in society and national politics and in return I expect society etc. to leave me alone to live my life as I see fit.
The last 12 years have seen excessive lawmaking by Labour and a mentality that the population needs "guidance" and state employees on hand to "help" in almost every aspect of our lives. That notion I reject and I say, simply, by all means go help the vulnerable in society but get your nose out of the lives those members of the population who don't want you interfering.
Conversely I reject Cameron's notion that we should all engage in social and community "volunteerism". Those who wish to do so are welcome to so what they want out of free will. Those who wish not only for society to leve them alone but also vice versa should be left to do as they wish quietly and privately.
I have a good education, years of business experience, a good skill set and some private means. I am however, not obligated to share any of those skills and attributes with anyone else and hence I reject lecturing by either left or right on what they (or people like you) regard as an individuals "responsibilities".
As I've said this underpins my philosophy of quietly minding my own business, obeying the law and not causing any harm to anyone else. The payment for being a "good citizen" in this way is that I expect others (including the state) to leave me alone in return.
I suspect though David that you and those like you will find it almost impossible not to meddle in others lives even when told to go away due to your absolute conviction you know best for everyone.
That is the heart and soul of my opposition to socialism, NuLabour and many of the posters on LL.
@Alex, sorry if it's long again and you don't like the content. What can I say, I'm a pain as my wife would agree.
I agree with the below comments. At times I even agree with you and you make your points clear and no-nonesense. We do need Tories to challenge us intelligently as it refines debate and quantifies the differing values we have, and sometimes those we share.
@ David: It is a shame I have come to this thread directly from reading the monarchy thread, and the "style" I noted there seems to be reflected here in spades: arrogant, bullying and shamelessly using social stereotypes to make a point: do we know if Guy M (and it is Guy M not ABI, AB1 or anything else) would turn the other cheek to a person in need? Why do we claim to have a monopoly on human kindness and compassion? Left and Right wing views are two means to the same end, which is the improvement of our civilisation.
Herein lies the crux of the debate: if every time an issue is discussed one side or the other seeks to close it down or cow the other party off the "moral high ground" then we will continue to see parties seeking to avoid airing such challenging questions, lest they lose valuable MORI points, and keep their political heads in the ground as the world changes around us - to the detriment of us all.
The beauty of the web is that the reader's only control is to read or not.
If a post is too long then don't read it but don't expect to influence the writer's decision.
As to your statement "How can i respect a person who would not put a hand out to help somebody who's down", what do you think tax is for?
The issue is down to the difference between my view, that I was not put on this earth to carry others who cant be bothered to struggle through themselves and your view that anyone not up to it is deserving of taking from my hard earned income.
At the core is my view that its my work, my time and my earnings and as such I have a far stronger call on the benefits of it than you, or anyone else.
I've yet to see anyone explain coherently why the government or other people deserve over 50% of any pound I earn. Perhaps you would like to try?
Short or long I don't care, just try for once?
Surely the real issue is that you view people who earn less than you to be an underclass of criminals.
The simple answer to your question is that you would be incapable of earning that money without this society. You can threaten to move abroad, but you'll just find yourself in another country where the same principle applies.
You wouldn't be able to "create" wealth without all those scummy underclass criminals who ultimately make/consume your product(s).
Sorry this has to be very brief now, as limited time.
Thankyou for your reply.
Unfortunately, I and many of my colleagues remember clearly the impact of policy changes on the public services and NHS in the 1980's- and have no reason to believe much has changed policy wise.In fact would probably be worse again in the light of drastic cuts proposed.
I agree, more efficiency is of course desirable, and never a bad thing.But so is adequate funding for the long term to protect front line services.
I believe that despite the recession, parties still have to decide their priorities- based on realism, and not just ideological principles.
David Cameron might be personally supportive of the NHS, but it is also his cabinet and party's policies that will count.From what I've seen of George Osborne's speech at conference, I think great fear of swingeing cuts to public services is justifiable.
We've just seen this happen in Notts under a new conservative administration; huge cuts affecting social care for the elderly, and local services.I hope this is not a taster of things to come.
Thanks anyway- and good luck too.
THank you, your comment and insight into issues of social care etc. are probasbly more valuable than most contributions you find on LL. You are also always extremely polite.
@Chris
I thinkwe both have a sneaking respect for each others determination to hold to our core beliefs despite the fact, which you allude to, we both think the other's views are half-baked.
Vive la différence. as my part French wife would say.
I can say i have never found your posts offensive , I do think its good that Alex allows debate on here ( does anyone remeber the previous editor?) , Debate is one of our freedoms wether we agree or disagree .
ricki
I've worked in the NHS for nearly 30 years, and remember clearly the impact of Tory policies in the 1980's onwards.This is when the culture of target setting and free market principles really kicked off.(Eg things like GP fundholding.)I can honestly say I thought most of it detrimental to morale.I don't want our public services run like supermarket chains...or for it to be a constant political football.
I too have criticisms of New Labour, but there has been a genuine commitment and good investment from the party.I do believe Labour will protect the NHS from swingeing cuts in years to come.
Look what Tory Dan Hannan had to say about our health services?!
Will the NHS be safe in their hands?
From my perspective and experience, the vast majority of my colleagues are likely to vote either Labour or Lib Dem.
Many of us remember the 80's very well.
I believe our public services are in real danger of savage cuts.
I believe David Cameron is personally committed to the NHS due to his own experiences of it - whether he maintains that commitment once (if?) in power remains to be seen, but I am starting from a position of trusting him and taking him at his word. If in a year or two I realise I was conned, I promise I will post here again and admit I got it wrong...
Personally I don't care if swingeing cuts result in me losing a job. I will follow Norman Tebbit's advice and get on my bike to find a new job. I don't think a government throwing money at the NHS is enough to justify voting for them. That is just bribery - "here, have some money, now vote for us!". I'm more concerned about where the money is spent and how efficiently the NHS runs as a result of investments towards it.
I can give you plenty of anecdotal evidence of misspent money at my workplace, but this specific thread is more about Labour's connection with the poor than their connection with the ill (although there is clearly something of a correlation). My point is that it is terrible judgment for Labour just to ASSUME that public sector employees, whether NHS or otherwise, will blindly vote Labour. If there is a good case to be made that in the next government the public sector will perform better under Labour than the Conservatives, then that case needs to be made to me and my colleagues, because we clearly don't see it yet and time is running out for you to make that point.
As it stands, I feel swingeing cuts are imminent from both sides, not just the Conservatives. Whichever party is honest and upfront about these cuts, and can manage their impact more efficiently, then good luck to them.
I have worked as health visitor in very deprived communities for years, and the majority are ordinary decent people trying to live a normal life.However- crime and social problems often rife on some estates, ruining quality of life for many.Children and families are on the receiving end.
I think there is so little genuine anlysis of these problems in the mainstream press- it's mainly just stereotypes of "scroungers"
living off the state, and criminals all rolled into one.
I too also don't believe in distinct "class" boundaries.
Maybe it just comes down to economics.
However- with all the selling off of council houses, and apparently raising aspirations for less well off people in the 80's under Thatcher- there was still a far bigger divide between "rich" and "poor".
And now David Cameron says he wants to make tackling "poverty" a big part of his party's agenda!(So far all I've heard is that he's planning to enlist "volunteers", whilst rolling back the state??!!)
Perhaps time to get on board people who actually have real experience and knowledge.
Give him his head.
Although he is entirely repetitious he is helpful to the Labour Party and kind of funny you have to admit. He kind of reminds me of the old Kenny Everett character "Mr Angry of Mayfair" a sexually repressed city gent dressed in pinstripes and bowler hat who would rant away to the camera about the sordid and disgusting nature of the previous sketch, only to turn his back and reveal that he was wearing women's underwear.
I have no idea why GuyM wastes so much of his valuable time (according to him that is) commenting on this site and saying the same thing over and over, almost in a "copy and paste" kind of fashion. To me Guy's behaviour does seem to be... well... kind of bonkers to be honest! Although I freely admit I am no expert when it comes to psychopathology in particular or mental health in general.
As to be expected, someone who doesn't agree with my views from the left seek to belittle and claim it's down to mental health and the like. Far easier to do that than accept a large chunk of the country doesn't agree with you Jeff isn't it?
A large % of the country is polarised. Many will never vote Tory and generally vote for "left" parties (the Libdems try to appear mild left to get their vote), many will never vote Labour and generally vote for "right" parties (the Libdems also trying to appeal to their vote).
A lot of you LL left wing posters seem to believe in some self evident truth that the core Labour philisophy appeals to everyone. It doesn't, to a large % of the public, who are more likely tha not to be "wealthy" Labour's core ideology is political toxin.
As I said originally Labour moved to the centre to attract "middle England" in 1997. A large number of those voters were natural Tories who were disenchanted with the party after the Major years and had fallen for Blair. But it was never their natural home and are now coming back to Cameron.
Which part of this is "bonkers" Jeff?
A few replies:
Mike, I have never suggested all the ABC1 or middle class is Tory but the voting patterns indicate well over 50% is and a small % vote Labour.
I also believe the middle class and working class are significantly different with different values, goals, social activities and the like. All of my friends and work colleagues are middle class. Not through concious choice but through lifestyle and I suggest they have the same pattern. The classes don't mix, housing, schooling, work, social activities (holidays, health clubs) are all largely separate.
Funnily enough the Labour government of the last 12 years has exacerbated this. If you destroy social norms and increase benefit dependency you intensify certain community traits to the extent you see the split between Middle and Working and between Underclass and everyone else that we see in the UK now, hence social mobility falls.
There are exceptions and many of them Mike and Phillip, but that doesn't change the majority structure which, as you are correct to point out, becomes even more polarised the further south you go.
Jeff, you ask why I post here. Because it infuriates me to see the sort of nonsense I see your like posting on LL. No one can disagree with you or point out basic reality that many of us see in the country if it doesn't fit your idealised view of society. When you get challenged your basic response is to call names, accuse others of mental instability and draw analogies with comic persona. The vapidity of that approach though is lost on you.
In pervious posts I have been called "disagreeably intelligent" by a left wing poster and the closest representation of "middle England" on LL by a right wing poster. Whether I am either I don't know, but I do know that I win the debate as soon as people like you Jeff drop into the childish sarcasm you seem fond of.
Labour has historically represented the working classes, which is noble in itself. For many of us though, notably not from the north, we have not been and never will be either working class or Labour supporters. Perhaps people should realise that "self-evident" truth.
Final point Mike, with the government insistant that they will transfer thousands of public sector jobs out of London and the Suth-East to the north of England the divide between Noth and South and Left and Right will only become ever larger. So the funny thing is for all the claims that what I say is not the reality on the ground, your Labour government have been acting to increase that divide steadily over 12 years.
I'll stop now as I probably need a long pyschotherapy session after that don't I Jeff?
PS I do respect what you do Alex and I hope you publish this reply as this is a debate and debate needs 2 sides whether I, you or anyone else likes both sides or not.
Look at all the supportive comments made in your defence by us "lefties". Don't you find it kind of sweet that you are held in such respect and affection by people diametrically opposed to your political and economic viewpoint? I find it commendable but not in the least unexpected coming as it does from men and women from the left of politics. We are a pretty decent bunch all in all.
I'm sure you realise that by sticking your head above the parapet and being so open about your beliefs you are bound to attract attention from people like me albeit in a humorous fashion. If I didn't consider you a worthy character I wouldn't have bothered to rag you in the first place. Personally I find your views a little too eighteenth century to take seriously all the time particularly your partitioning of the population into classes, apparently based on income, and habitual climbing up into the pulpit to pontificate drearily about "middle England" and the "middle classes" like some self-styled prophet preaching rapture for the professional classes and Armageddon for everyone else. This is plainly silly and makes you like like some kind of... well... snobbish Hyacinth Bucket kind of character, who insisted that her last name should be pronounced "Bouquet" rather than the more common variant, literally, as spelt in English.
Look. The reason Blair and New Labour were elected in 1997 and won two subsequent elections subsequently was that he fooled people into believing that under New Labour the UK could enjoy the fruits of a dynamic market economy tempered by a social conscience capable of delivering social justice to all. As we now know none of this turned out to be true. Today, David Cameron has made the Conservatives acceptable and electable by performing the same Blairite trick and superficially dragging the Tories back to the centre of politics. Cameron is destined to be Prime Minister not by espousing Laissez faire ultra-low income tax economics like you but by going back to a "One Nation" Conservatism enabling his party to garner votes not only from confirmed Conservative voters but also from disaffected New Labour voters who have become sick of a diet of Mandelsonian spin, lies and broken promises. By promoting relatively extreme economic views while simultaneously crowing about your "middle-English-middle-class" credentials (which posturing never fails to make me smile!) as well as identifying yourself as a Conservative supporter you actively undermine and malign all of David Cameron's efforts to rehabilitate the thrice defeated Tory Party and take it back into government.
Actually, Guy, I do kind of like you. Obviously I don't agree with you for any number of reasons not least because I don't see men and women merely as economic units made out of protoplasm or ciphers in some grand impersonal economic equation. To me human beings are astounding and incredible sentient beings brimful with hopes, dreams, thoughts, fears, emotions, feelings, talents and abilities no different and certainly no less worthwhile than my own. Unlike Lady Thatcher I KNOW that society does exist and that we, none of us, can exist separately from it. Every living being matters. Everyone is of significance. We rise and fall together or not at all.
By the way I think that I was the "left wing poster" mentioned that labelled you "disagreeably intelligent". Take it as a compliment. I wouldn't have used words like that it if I didn't find you... "disagreeable"!
I think you should be allowed to post on LL unless you are outright offensive - and I think that the same moderation should apply to all posting here.
You are often a valuable contributor here, and I agree with a surprising amount of what you say.
I have to say I find your self regard; thoughts on class and your position in society Pooterish in the extreme, but frankly that is a reason to keep you posting here to cheer me up and have a good laugh.
Conversely, you clearly regard what I am up to as Utopian, and we fundamentally disagree in relation to the balance of individual rights and social obligations, but if there were no disagreements and new thinking nothing would get done at all.
Hello Guy, I am a working class boy from a poor family and a single mum in the 60s/70s, my mum used to shout at the tele during the winter of discontent, so when Mrs Thatcher came along my mum believed she would sort out the mess and the stupid men. 10 years later she felt Mrs Thatcher had gone to far.We lived in Surrey with wealth all around which allowed my mum to always find work cleaning. So i grew up as a Thatcher child and voted accordingly until after John Major.Since then I have not voted as none of the parties offer me what I want.
I have achieved a lot in 50 years and very fortunate to make a living out of my passion, music. I now live a very middle class lifestyle and am married 25 years with two teenage daughters, a traditional English family with a Christian Ethos.
My views have changed over the years about free market economics as the rich keep hurting the poor. Our Goverment, no matter which one, continues to destroy our way of life and the poor and minimum wage earners have been abandoned and our Gov't is using tougher and tougher punishments to control them, where there policies have put and kept them.
So the point is I am both Working and Middle class as I have never forgotten where I came from. A lot of us most probably feel the same in the South but the further North you go, the stronger the feeling towards Working Class.
The pound in the poor person's pocket is 2nd class (or 3rd) currency. It is worth a damn sight less than the pound in his/her better off neighbour's bank account.
the most important things are not the people of Britain, but getting re elected. This seriously upsets me.
Possibly one of the most pragmatic and sensible items I've seen for a long time.
Perfectly captures the fact that a career politician elite that goes straight into politics without gaining any other experience is not in a position to understand how most people live, their aspirations, or their alternative view of the world.
Reconnecting specifically with the poor is a fine aim for a fringe party or a special interest lobby group, but it will certainly not make for good national government and a happy, healthy democracy, especially if it is at the expense of the middle ground and the aspirational poor who want to move upwards to a better life.
So specifically concentrating on "the poor" is not a viable way to run a country. Whereas if you look after Middle England, raising the average standard, you will also benefit the poor, that's my opinion.
However in order to gain power you needed a mix of a hated Tory party and an appeal to middle England.
This Labour got for a time but it was only ever support on loan, it naturally belonged back with the Tory party.
Working and Middle classes don't mix, they don't share values, aspirations, lifestyles, priorities and social lives. Labour used to appeal to the working class but in moving to the middle they seem to have gone to far.
That should be a salutary lesson for Cameron also so as to move towards the centre but not too far from his core vote.
Neither the middle or working classes are homogenous. The Tories certainly pick up much of the vote of the rural, traditional middle class. However, Labour have always won support amongst the intelligentsia and public sector professionals - many of them have switched to the LibDems which is part of Labour's problem.
We are middle class, Guy, but our values, aspirations, lifestyles, priorities and social lives are very different from yours. We are left-wing, gay, no kids and live up North for a start. And we would absolutely never vote Tory.
ABC1 (middle class) historical voting patterns show they vote Tory in the majority, with a lead over Labour of well over 30 points up to 1997 when even in the Tory debacle they still maintained a lead.
DE (working class) historical voting patterns show they vote Labour with around a 50% share even preferring Labour during the Thatcher landslide years.
There are obviously significant exceptions to this rule but it holds none the less. The middle classes and especially the southern and midland middle classes of England find their political home in the Tory party more often than not.
As a direct opposite to you I am from that group (southern, middle class, right wing, straight) and would never vote Labour under any circumstance.
I would agree that there is a regional difference as well. And whilst I would agree that we are opposites, I don't really think that a household of a lecturer and a dentist could really be viewed as working class!
I would hazard a guess that almost all my colleagues will vote Conservative at the next election, certainly the ones I have discussed politics with.
We are all public-minded people who want to live in a better scoiety, and we just don't see any connection between the Labour party and the group of hospitals and clinics which form our workplace (which is right at the heart of the local community).
It's highly complacent and wildly inaccurate for Labour to think it represents the public sector and its employees. It doesn't, not round here anyway. Labour is going to have a massive shock if it thinks it has our votes in the bag.
Many try their utmost to rise above the benefit system, but so called "flexible workforce" justs seems to toss them back & forth until some give up. These are growing problems of exclusion which have not been looked into adequately (or not resulted in a decent policy) at all since they began - albeit in the Thatcher years - with privatisation of utilities, with changes in the banking system, with the far greater reliance on agency working & so forth. They cover all of us at the "bottom" of society, whatever our ethnicity may be, so tackling them could not be considered a form of "pandering" to the disaffected white working class.
It starts with the core Scottish Presbyterian concepts "that you are your brothers' keeper" and "that an injustice against one is an injustice against all".
My socialism is about promoting fairness and justice for all.
My socialism is also about leaving the world a better place than I found it, helping people to help themselves and not leaving them dependent on benefits and means tested supplementary income.
My problem with current political thinking is it is stuck in the rut of doing more of the same, differently, wondering why the problem is still there and then blames people rather than the 'solution'.
Apart from the rabid ends of the political spectrum I propose that the majority UK voters from 'Guardianistas to One Nation Tories' weave along this sort of line, otherwise events like 'Children in Need' would not raise the sums they do.
I think the majority of voters in the UK still agree with the core findings of the 1942 Beveridge Report and at its heart the UK voters still think fair play is important, rather than pure political advantage for any one section of the community over the rest.
Now with six months to go what are we going to do about it to ensure politics at Westminster really does reflect the true will of the people for real fairness?
The problem uis so many people do not watch programmes such as this, our dumbed down society prefers to watch football and celeb get me outta here!
It was particularly striking to see how the British public reacted against the propaganda, and rise of Mosley's fascist party in the 1930's.
And our Goverments obsession with allowing the world to come and live here, another 150,000 in the last year, will ensure tha tthe demand continues to grow and the BNP will be the beneficiary.
All three Parties offer nothing, just more of the same corrupt Politics to benefit the Rich, Multi Nationals and Corporations.
Until we all get the guts to turn our backs on all of the mand unite to create a new agenda for the British people we will continually be turned over and lied to.
The BNP now offers us the working class a better future than any of the mainstream Parties, what a sad state of affairs. We have been marginalised to such an extent we are left with no other choice. We appreciate that we will not see a BNP win yet, but in 5 years time whether Labour or the Tories win the next election and the EU has started throwing its weight around a victory then is possible.
When the revolution starts every Liberal in this Country will wish to leave, as the hate building up in the UK will be vicious and violent when it ineviably happens. Politicians can continue to lie and promise the world and then when elected follow a path of the enslavement of us all by our Political masters. We are sick of Bankers, Lawyers, Politicians and the morons that support them. On this site everyday Labour supporters argue about how disgusting their Nu Labour Goverment has been but are still willing to vote for them come May?!!!as I said morons the lot of them.
A time will come when the anger is so great we will have our own revolution and the working and middle class will unite against the corruption, waste and theft of our taxes that drips from the boardrooms of multi nationals to the stinking wretched Houses of Parliament.
People you need to wake up, every one of the three main parties offer the same, lies and utter dissapointment. Don't be fooled by the few scraps they throw from the table such as the minimum wage, instead look at what they have taken from us, our water, our gas, free university, our pensions, our rights, our enviroment.
This insidious path has been followed since I was a boy, no matter who we vote for we are left poorer and poorer still when Labour goverments are voted out.
We need to unite against this undemocratic destruction of our traditions and right to live as free men and women without a Police State bearing down on all of us. Remember under English common Law you are innocent until proven guilty, under EU law you are guilty until proven innocent!
So lets actually do something about this other than squabble about who we hate more whilst ignoring the truth.
I'd share all the views you call a 'shiny new social creed'. Perhaps under PR we could have a liberal-progressive party for me and a workerist party for you, but under FPTP they somehow have to co-exist, as does the social conservative and libertarian strands of the Tory party
Every government runs out of steam eventually, and then they usually lose the election. Occasionally they still manage to win - the Tories in 1992 being an example - but the subsequent government was a farce, limping along until their eventual defeat (I was going to say Major defeat but that would be a pun too far...)
This is what has happened now. Its called the electoral cycle. Why we should be surprised about it is a mystery to me
As for the substantive question, NL has managed to alienate different parts of its constituent voting bloc from 97. The once-only Tories left Labour shortly after 97, but didn't bother to vote in 01, and only partially returned in 05. they are now back in the Tory fold, where they should be
The greater problem is that two of the core groups who have very different priority issues have also become disillusioned
1. the liberal-left Guardianistas, smaller in number, but who vote religiously, and in 05 that was often for the Libdems. I still think many of those are fed up with Labour and may stay with the LD's, go for the Greens, or not vote at all. But the majority will probably vote labour in the end
2. the working-class core, who simply don't notice enough difference in their lives to make them want to vote Labour again. I think its not so much about public goods such as schools, sports centres etc - they have been massively improved. Its much more about housing and the general environment. I'm not in the least convinced that the localism agenda is of appeal there - the opposite if anything. Housing is the real problem issue and I think that it is high time it became a priority not a part-time occupation without a cabinet level minister
So if you type "Gordon Brown" under "search"- there is a list of related stories.One of them being:
"Government invades Notts for cabinet meeting."
Also- other stories with much criticism predictably from the conservative council, who labelled it as a "PR stunt."
However, the newspaper itself has been extremely critical of the massive Tory cuts in Nottingham- affecting social care and public services.People need to have a taster of what may yet come next year!
When I returned to the UK back in September I spoke to some old friends of mine. I believe there was a scandal regarding one of the Labour City Councillors "interests".
Though I do not doubt the Tory cuts are hurting.
I had a letter printed in the Thurrock Gazette attacking the Tory cuts on their council which were truly nasty.
"PM's team set out to win back lost votes;"
"Brown's blast over county cost cutting."
Also- for good coverage of the East Midlands news: BBC (East Midlands)The Politics Show.(Sundays.)Ther's an archive of shows on the BBC webpage.
Good luck- and thanks so much again!
After watching a repeat of PMQS i doubt it ?
ricki
I think politicians should be interested in the publics' views- which are not always reflected accurately in the media- only snapshots.
Gordon Brown recently came to Nottingham with members of the cabinet, and I heard it was a great success.(Possibly partially in response to massive cuts to public spending by the new Tory administration- as hilighted on the BBC (East Midlands) Politcs Show.)Members of the public were invited to form panels from eg Derby and Notts, to air vital issues affecting communities.
It sounded like a genuine forum for discussion- and local people interviewed by Nottingham E.P. expressed highly positive views of Gordon Brown.
However- there could be other forums involving local politicians and planners- and representatives from diverse community groups in debate.
This is exactly the stuff we need. Just hope they told the truth as far as they could.
Great idea, I would love to see local debates. I also don't think politicians should necessarily be present. I would love to be able to access expert opinion outside a political context.
If enough people get behind you, you can achieve anything. Create a 4.8 million dollar charity project in Nepal? Done that - five blokes in the UK who wanted to make a difference and along with the same number in Nepal we achieved that in three years, building and equipping a state of the art cleft palate and oral cancer hospital for the poorest, in the worlds 12th poorest nation. Now we are still fund raising to pay for the operations for these folk and get donations from all round the world.
We need to understand we are truly only limited by our self imposed limitations. You will wipe the floor with Griffin because that is what you have clearly set out to do for the best of reasons, honestly and openly - people will buy that and then give you more once you are seen to keep your promise and deliver.
That is your USP to the voter, no matter what the rosette on your lapel says.
I see where you are coming from, but one thing you need in this country is the media to get and put your message across.
The media are only interested in those already elected and rarely take an interest (unless they must to make their own political point) with ordinary people.
I certainly have the oratory skills, the passion and the idealism, but even that is not enough.
In defeating Nick Griffin my focus will not determine my reality in the manner you suggest as there are other potent interests involved. Sadly I cannot tell you what they are, but with a bit of luck, those interests will remain in the shadows.
They are howver nothing to do with me but the baggage that has been created unnecessarily by the Party itself in it's clumsy manner in dealing with problems.
Local "panels"- a bit like Question Time- aired pubicly, with invited experts from all walks of life- and anyone concerned by important local issues.
I think people should feel more empowered as "citezens" of their community and town, and have a real voice.
The impression I have and feel myself, is that we're all confined to being recipients of information via the media -tabloid newspapers or TV etc.
Where is there a forum where we can genuinely connect with politicians and have an ongoing dialogue as equals?
This forum, LabourList- is in itself a great forum and springboard for diverse and shared ideas.
But I also read many comments and blogs in our local press, from people that feel terrible frustration that their views are not being heard and needs unmet....I also think there's a danger of misconceptions arising when we all rely on sensationalist headlines to feed us information.
I hope we are not all turning into couch potatoes, passively tuning into reality TV, and being distracted by trivia and celebrity gossip- while the rest of the world is turning....
Somehow we need to feel we are a part of decision making, and an active citezen- not only a passive recipient.
A couple of notable examples of democratic forums were the Obama campaign- and "We Love the NHS;" sometimes "people power" can make a difference.
Apologies if I sound a little idealistic- but perhaps we need to return to good old fashioned community values!
The only way Labour voters can reclaim there party is i am afraid after the election (if we lose) , We need to get rid of the torys that have hijacked our party , We need to return to representing the poor and the working class , Maybe after the election the party might get it .
ricki
So unless there is also a serious campaign to introduce PR - not the AV - we are likely to be stuck with the converging big tent parties
“The place for direct expenditure and organisation by the State is in maintaining the employment of labour and other productive resources of the country...” Beveridge Report 1942
“Unemployment, both through increasing expenditure on benefit and through reducing the income to bear those costs, is the worst form of waste.” Beveridge Report 1942
Not rocket science but it is what we should be holding government to account on as socialists - even lapsed, SNP voting ones like me :-)
A few starters:
1. Return to mass protests and riots as our fore fathers did in the 18th and 19th centuries (always been a traditional method of dissent for centuries)?
2. Seek to fund and stand as Independent Candidates or as a 'Stop the rot at Westminster party'?
3. Join the Co-operative Party 'en masse' and re-establish it away from Labour?
Come on Ralph and the rest time to get thinking we have less than six months to make a real difference before another ten years of more turgid politics from the establishment.
Lol
Do you seriously think you can change the ststus quo so quickly from a blog site?
Besides I am having my time taken up with dealing with Nick Griffin and (secretly) laughing at the people who think they know what they are doing in dealing with him.
I am enjoying my fun, but running away from the Labour Party will not solve your problem and standing as an independent is vain and incredibly expensive.
I agree this is a very complex issue, and no simple solutions.
Going back further, I have a clear memory of the changes to society from the early 1980's, during 18 years of Tory government.What were the proven statistics about the gap between the richest and poorest at that time? Also- Maggie Thatcher's assertion that "society" didn't exist? Didn't Labour acquire a legacy of a more divided society?
(However- I agree, perhaps should have spent less energy identifying the party only with a so called "middle class" image; how has it lost its connection with its traditional voters?)
And does it transpire to become an either/or mentality?
Labour values should cut across "class."
Regarding the different parties' take on "poverty", a recent article:
"I'll need volunteers to make big society work, says Cameron,"(Guardian 11/11);
- suggests Tory policy will be rolling back the state, and partially replacing with volunteers to tackle social problems! Does anyone know what they are talking about?!
It would be so refreshing to actually hear a sensible dialogue in the full public domain, based on real facts, and not spin or soundbites.
Whether it be on the subjects of "poverty," public services, education, health, immigration, etc- let's hear from some real experts- not just party political point scoring and superficial headlines.
The political arena seems so self limiting- what we need is real vision and fresh ideas; not tired mantras.
And certainly not a return to the dark days of 1980's; remember Spitting Image?
I think a great need for going back to the drawing board and consulting widely with a diverse public might re energise ideas and values.
I'm surprised at your opinion on the death penalty. You say "that a form of political censorship is undertaken by a political class over and against the views of those they are supposed to represent". This why they only represent them. This is why we have representative democracy. Whats the point of MPs if we're just going to do whatever is shown in an opinion poll? This doesn't mean MPs shouldn't listen but they definitely shouldn't be slavish.
It is not just the poor that have been alienated and disenfrachised. I believe there is a general feeling that it doesn't matter what people think as the Government and politicians seem to be on a different planet. They seem to be fighting their own political battles with little consideration for the public.
It might seem my two statements are contradictory, but I believe that the death penalty is very different to tax policy.
Wasn't Matthew Kelly falsly accused of something ghastly, good thing we didn't hang him that would make us all institutional murderers.
Who then would hang us?
Though I think sentencing such a crime should be very, very severe.
I agree with you fully on poverty and I am sorry your family experienced what they did. That is the whole purpose of the Labour Party though to help those who are vulnerable and bring a little fairness into what is an unfair world.
A 'workerist' party would be a marginal party in today's Britain. With PR, fine, without, a non-starter
actully its worse , The headline grabbing to please one group alieanites another and as the leadership have spent 12 years trying to please everyone , The poor , young feel demonised as they chase the headlines , If the leadership do not understand this the bloddy nose that voters gave us in the eu elections (by electing 2 bnps meps ) will be worse if 1 or 2 find there way into the house of commons and once they get a foothold they will get a platform and in 20 years could the bnp become the main left party in parliment ?
ricki
Devolution has showed the centrist politicians at Westminster that ceding power is dangerous because people start to understand what Westminster has always taken for itself and how it abuses our liberties.
The lies told by Government over the last ten years are now coming back to haunt them: Iraq, end of boom and bust and expenses are just a few. So why should anyone engage with the main parties at Westminster - there is no real difference between Labour and the Tories they are both only interested in themselves and their pals in the city.
Brown is busy spending tax payers' money to prop up a system in the 'City' that is inherently corrupt and which his actions as chancellor did much in bringing the current crisis to pass. Why is it we are paying for politicians and bankers errors?
If I run a business into the ground, be it a corner shop or UK PLC, can I expect the banks to bail me out in the same way? No, the chances are the negative short term attitude of the self same banks and government 'enterprise agencies' are what will have put me in the perilous financial situation in the first place.
It is time to wake up - voter apathy is not just about Labour it is about the failure of all MP's to hold government to real account. All the communal Westminster 'bahhing' around 'saving the banks' was the last straw for many who have had to deal with the self same banks greed and mendacity over the decades.
Why do Scots want more fiscal accountability to be held at Holyrood? Easy - they no longer trust Westminster and it appears that the SNP take the use of our taxpayer's money given back as Scottish pocket money with more care and consideration than Westminster. The Welsh people are coming to the same conclusion with increasing support for fiscal autonomy for the Principality.
The safest Labour seat in Scotland, with a built in, cast iron 10,000+ majority, held on the lowest turn out in a Scottish bye election ever which still saw a swing to the SNP, says more than anything about the problem of Westminster in voters eyes.
Westminster is now seen more and more introverted and self serving. Ralph is right until it gets a serious kick up the backside, politics in this country will continue to stagnate and become yet another 'wonksville' pastime.
Now what are we, who post here and by inference care, going to do about it all?
No good fella. But unlike all the others I did leave them with a positive and strong parting gift that left the Tories in Thurrock in a mess. Albeit a temporary one.
capitial punishment or many of the more extreme examples of punishment never address this. We had the slogan right about treating the cause of crime but some of the answers for some are unpalatable.
- full redistrubution of wealth
- legalisation of drugs
etc.
Well written piece , I agree its a disiluttionment between the voters and MPS , I have said before we have torys on both front benches and there only intrest is power, Until the voters have a choice between left and right the rise of the bnp will countiue .
ricki
Well David as an example of (it is not a bitter thing for me as it was a new experience and I am still making sense of it) selecting people.
In Thurrock my aims on my Parliamentary CV were to take (real and substantial) action to rebuild their local party and membership.
I actually propsed rebuilding relations with the public and placing the Party across the Constituency in a much stronger position to it's current declining position.
In this instance though the membership deferred and rejected the proposal in favour of relying on a local candidate. This is fine as I myself wanted a local candidate (and we were denied it) years ago when I was a Councillor.
So it really rests on the fears and hopes of those in the Party to choose.
In that constituency their doorstep work, as in many Constituencies is declining along with everything else. That trend will most proababley continue.
Remember Politicians love "apathy" (a stupid term that descibes something far more complex, fundamental and worrying) because they know they can get away with more.
They want a lower membership, they want a lower turnout, why? Because to them and in their minds they believe they can get away with more without Daddy and Mummy electorate keeping an eye on them.
The frequent media phrase that we hear "we are not in politics for the money" and "are in poitics to change things for the better" is utter grabage and not reflected by the actions of those elected.
They should be honest and say "we are in it for the money, every penny we can take however we can do so and call it legal" and of course "we came into politics to throw a few scraps at the electorate who we underestimate freely and change things for the big new friends we will make once in power".
Here we are knocking on doors and spending a great deal of time listing and listening to peoples problems and in many cases sorting them out, and those buffoons in Parliament find a new dilemma or problem to throw at these people.
Jack Straw on Immigration when he refused to answer a straightforward question on Question Time because of his contempt for the public and lack of accountability. The greed in the House, as the expenses issues drags on and on because there is not an ounce of intelligence or wisdom at all as MP's plan their escape with as much as they can get.
However the relations on the ground are essential and the only real challenge is how much time do we have to rebuild relations that should have been maintained by Councillors and MPs in the first place.
The answer is very little.
But this is what happens when politics becomes a paid career. Council leaders sit back and fill their pockets whilst civil servants exercise the powers of decision making and MP's run off with their ill-gotton goods.
The people poorer or otherwise don't enter the equation. So we should be realistic and accept that when the GE comes, in many places Labour won't be entering the rquation either.
It is fair and it is just. There is no-one to blame but ourselves for allowing this to happen.
Sorry David I refined my response through editing it.
I fear there is little you can do. The next generation of unelites is ready to inherit the safest Parliamentary seats, therefore conrol of the Party via the dictatorship of the NEC will remain in their hands. The comment below was not meant for this article I selected a different article but went through to this one. Apologies again to the author and commentators.
The rapid transformation and loss of a sense of community was not voted for or chosen by the people and they were therefore not represented by those they supported.
In effect the loyal Labour supporters were clearly betrayed and used.
If I betry you after asking you for your support will you love it?
Michael if I use you, take a load of money in expenses, get myself a job with a company in return for securing a government contract at your tax money and expense will you thank me?
If you ask me to abandon an scheme for ID cards and I tell you I will infront of you and the whole Labour membership, but don't (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8376193.stm) will you thank me for it?
If I promise to reduce CO2 emissions and fail and throw around a load of ridiculously childish and blatently wrong statistics a GCSE student could see through will you thank me for being honest?
If I promise a radical alteration to the Constitution to involve you Michael, more in electoral process and then do zip, will you show me gratitude?
Agreed but can we not refer to these people as elites please. They are not elite and there is nothing about them to make them elite. These people will not open their eyes or heaven forbid, associate with those they once stood shoulder to shoulder with, because they genuinly believe themselves to be superior, though I think secretly ashamed as well.
You are absolutely 100% correct. Sadly, it is the Labour Government that has propagated this state of affairs. Additionally, whilst you do see to the root of the problem, I don't see any solutions here - I'd be interested to hear what you think, since you seem to be a sensible chap.
The fact that, as far I'm aware, there is little or no representation of this opinion within Westminster illustrates the larger (and more important) point I am trying to make - that a form of political censorship is undertaken by a political class over and against the views of those they are supposed to represent.
No justice system is ever infallible so, until you have a way to bring people back from the dead, we shouldn't be using execution as a punishment.
Also, whenever I hear that X% of the population want something, I try to remember that 50% of the population are below average intelligence. Naturally, if I'm part of the X%, then the truth is so obvious that even the below average can see it.
I do not care if 70% of the population are for the death penalty. It is barbaric way of treating criminals and fails to any of the things it is claimed to do. There is no deterrent factor, it is not cheaper when you factor in a number of appeals and it is not 100% foolproof.
In fact all it does is to satisfy a basic human desire for revenge which is the worse of all the human traits.
Agreed on your conclusion. It would not surpise me at all.
Being disabled I find it very difficult to find a party which even thinks I'm a human, words like scrounger, work shy, or lazy dam well make me dam angry. Just to get up in the morning to even to start a new Day is so hard, to live on benefits which have been cut to the bone by a New Labour Government hurts like hell. To see that I have to again go through new medicals, because like it or not my conditions not going to get better.
So right now when I've voted Labour all of my working life, looking for another party is hard, do I vote New Labour because they are a type of Labour party, do I vote Tory some thing I die before I'd do, or do I protest by showing my anger at voting BNP, well I'm angry alright.
The problem is not Labours outlook or "world view". Its that Labour has no outlook, it has no vision at all. All Labour seems capable of doing is making anti-gay, anti-Islam, anti-anything views a crime. It seems sometimes that it is unacceptable to criticise anyone or anything for fear of being somehow prejudiced.
The overall point of the article is correct although it shows the underlying hollowness of the lefts outlook. The willingness of the traditional Labour vote to vote for the far right shows there is little social conscience among the very poorest. They vote out of self interest, which happens to be traditionally for Labour.
I have always been confused about the poor voting for the left. I've never really understood it. It has always seemed to me that the Tories could easily be the party of the poor. Instead of giving handouts and patronising the poorest, they need to be given genuine ways of escaping their situation themselves.
I don't believe there is any way for Labour to "reconnect with the poor" before the next election. The 10p tax fiasco hurt Labours reputation greatly. It was a blatant attempt to secure the middle class vote at the expense of the poorest, and was shameful. It will be at least a parliament before Labour can earn the trust of the poorest again.