The next Labour leader should see it as their duty to create the space to encourage real debate
It used to be said of the American Democrats that, in the aftermath of their repeated electoral drubbings in the 1980s, the party’s response was to form a circular firing squad.
This is a trait that Labour has frequently shared. It is an axiom of British politics that divided parties lose elections. The vicious infighting after Labour’s defeat in 1979 sparked by the hard left’s takeover attempt played a big part in keeping the party out of power for the next 18 years. Similarly, battles between supporters of Aneurin Bevan and Hugh Gaitskell in the 1950s helped create an impression of disunity which proved deeply damaging to Labour’s electoral prospects throughout the decade.
The Tories, too, have learned the high price voters exact from parties which turn on themselves. Parliamentary rebellions, leadership contests (both real and threatened) and attacks by rightwing newspapers destabilised John Major’s government and led to the catastrophe which befell it in 1997.
But, while unity may be a prerequisite of victory, alone it is not enough. Moreover, when calls for unity snuff out an honest analysis of the challenges a party faces in the aftermath of defeat, they can prove utterly detrimental to its political recovery.
The last five years provide a case study in these dangers. Labour’s leadership election in 2010 had many flaws but two were particularly damaging.
First, the contest itself failed to debate many of the issues that, after 13 years in power, the party desperately needed to address. In place of a thoroughgoing examination of what Labour got right and wrong in government, superficial and glib explanations for Gordon Brown’s defeat were offered. Decrying Labour’s record on immigration became a proxy for the much wider debate about its record that the party required.
Second, Ed Miliband’s election as leader was seen as bringing to a close the need for any further contest of ideas. But the notion that the party’s response to the new political, social and economic landscape it faced could be resolved in four summer months while much of the country was distracted by the novelty of a coalition government and, more likely, its summer holidays, was farcical.
The issues Labour had to grapple with – how to restore its battered economic credibility in the wake of the financial crisis, and the party’s purpose when it could no longer just switch on the public spending spigots – were never going to be resolved simply by the election of a new leader. By pretending that they had been, and that any attempt to discuss them was disloyal, the party did itself a huge disservice. Instead, it adopted a ‘safety-first’ approach, assuming that the implosion of the Liberal Democrats and the unpopularity of the Tories would hand it victory.
There were, of course, some who attempted to rouse Labour from its intellectual stupor. Whatever our disagreements with them at times, both Compass and those around Maurice Glasman’s blue Labour played such a role. Progress’ Purple Book attempted to fulfil a similar function. So too did a number of members of parliament on the party’s left and right. Sadly, however, those who were determined to shut down any form of debate chose not to engage with their arguments, but to brief against them and question their motives. Their attitude appears to have stemmed from a fear that they might not like the outcome of such a debate. As such, the calls for unity were little more than a guise for censorship.
Moreover, problems which reared their head after 2010 were similarly swept under the carpet: Labour’s defeat in the 2011 Scottish parliamentary election; the rise of the United Kingdom Independence party and how the party was harming Labour, not just the Conservatives; the fallout from the Scottish independence referendum; and the Tories’ ‘English votes for English laws’ proposals. On each occasion, Miliband’s team simply adopted a lowest common denominator, not shared, position.
Successful parties are those which are intellectually vibrant; they unite after, not before, debate and they coalesce around the conclusions. The intellectual ballast which underpinned the great reforming government of 1945 was provided by socialist thinkers such as RH Tawney, Evan Durbin and Michael Young. Giles Radice, Will Hutton and Tony Giddens, alongside groups such as the Labour Coordinating Committee, Renewal and Nexus, and revisionist thinkers around Marxism Today all played a part in Labour’s comeback in the 1990s. Indeed, however destructive its impact, it is indisputable that Margaret Thatcher’s election in 1979 and the longevity of Thatcherism owed a great deal to the intellectual energy of the Tory right in the 1970s.
Facing a crisis which is, as Jon Cruddas put it last month, ‘epic in scale’, Labour must learn from the mistakes of the last parliament. Unity based around nothing more than a dislike of the Tories is – and has been proven to be – not enough. Instead, the party needs an honest reckoning with why it fell so spectacularly short on polling day, to show the public it has heard its message, and a robust but comradely debate about how it can win in 2020.
Labour’s challenge in many ways is so great. The fracturing of the party’s support last month demonstrates that. It must wrestle not only with its parlous position in Scotland, but its loss of support to Ukip in many of its northern citadels and its utter rejection by the south of England.
But to overcomplicate why Labour ended up 100 seats behind David Cameron’s party risks obscuring a simple truth: no party wins when it is behind on leadership and economic competence. Getting ahead on both is Labour’s task. This is no easy assignment and is unlikely to be completed between now and September.
Instead of providing all the answers, the next Labour leader should see it as their duty to create the space to encourage real debate. In so doing, he or she will take a first, huge, step towards avoiding the fate of their predecessor.
Parliamentary rebellions, leadership contests (both real and threatened) and attacks by rightwing newspapers destabilised John Major’s government and led to the catastrophe which befell it in 1997.
Indeed. Limbless and / or blind brown-skinned children in Iraq, Afghanistan and Sierra Leone will forever rue the day Blair won a general election in Britain.
The Labour leadership contest is a donkey derby. Never was there a cupboard more bare.
I have been saying since about 2007 that the next Labour PM is not even yet an MP. Still true 8 years later.
Afghanistan,I’ve yet to have heard proof that the UK involvement would have ever seen an additional child injured that wouldn’t have happened,due to the population there going in a killing spree, Sierra Leone was a success, and Iraq would have happened without a Labour government.
It may take years for labour to get in Lisa Nandy will only be 45 13 years from now.
Thatcher put women’s rights back,it took labour members to pass Fay marriage, a coalition with the Libdems policy.
The economy was in dire straights, in 1964 better by 1970′ and the economy of 1951 wasn’t labours fault, the banking crisis wasn’t labours fault, and Alistair darling would have fixed the economy too
It’s all there. No sign of any admission of error. Labour Lie Bingo:
All the kids would have been blown apart anyway – check
Iraq wasn’t Labour’s fault – check
Thatcher doesn’t count as a woman – check
Labour brought in gay marriage – check
Labour doesn’t wreck the economy – check
The banking crisis wasn’t Labour’s fault – check
The recovery would have just happened anyway – check
– house! Do I win a Labour peerage?
Tory majority nailed on in 2020.
Afraid no labour peerage, as there’s too many labour peers,to stop Tory legislation,and the Toeies need to get more to pass laws, but heh by rights they should only have 37% of lords, and come 2020 on first past the post,it’ll be near impossible for labour to win,but then,the Daily mail can be outraged that less than 66% of the electorate have voted in the last few elections.
Justice4Rinka Ignoring the facts…
http://tinyurl.com/J4Rinka
search for: can’t deny the facts
The oil price rise damaged our economy and knocked us…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1970s_energy_crisis
Justice4Rinka, I wish you would stop dodging the issue and get to the point.
I have to say though I agree with most of this. If you take into account the legacy Ed Miliband had to deal with, I reckon he did OK.
Richard, he has no intention of debating with us. I tried to engage him in a discussion and presented a set of facts to him that defended our record. He would not read them or respond to questions about them. His only contribution is to throw mud. Thank goodness normal Conservatives are not like him.
I think he makes some very good points. It’s my first visit here and I find some of the articles very interesting in explaining why Labour is no longer fit for purpose and is in fact a dead party walking. I do though have 2 questions: Why is this site called ProgessOnline when the left is a regressive movement – it’s only the Conservative party that is truly ‘progressive’. And why have you lot adopted ‘neoliberal’ to replace capitalist? Just asking.
“Only” – isn’t that rather arrogant?
Being progressive, we recognize and accept the role of the market, whilst rejecting dogma from the right or left. Capitalism is essential for the free market and for progress, whereas neoliberalism is regressive because it operates for the few.
Neoliberalism favours privatization, minimal government intervention in business, reduced public expenditure on social services, etc. Sometimes these are appropriate, but not when done for purely dogmatic (unthinking) reasons.
The Conservatives are not progressive in the sense that they tend to drive forward the rights of the elite but at the expense of the disadvantaged. I came from a disadvantaged background and because of social policy I escaped. Our three sons are all into engineering. That’s three engineers the country wouldn’t have if “laissez faire” had determined my progress. That’s it: progress for me, our sons, and the country.
In yesterday’s Guardian the owners of a company celebrated an investment of £140m turning into £2b at 1, Hyde Park. To minimize tax the company is offshore. Unfortunately they gave a film blog to the Guardian in which they accidentally trashed their own eligibility for compliance with offshore rules. They are donors to the Tory party.
Is that what you meany by “progressive”?
Justice4Rinka is not interested in debate. See how he ignores facts that stare him in the face…
http://tinyurl.com/J4Rinka
Dear Editor:
I’m not sure what a “chimera” of unity means. A chimera is a mythical beast comprising two or more animals rolled into one.
I think you may mean “mirage”?
It will take some time – a year or two – to learn the lessons of 7 May. We can’t wait for a new Leader until then. Even if we did, there would still be people saying “We have not learnt all the lessons yet… let’s wait longer”.
What is needed is plain speaking by the Leader candidates. But we also need plain speaking by Ed Miliband. He must not sequester himself during the process. He needs to be self-critical if we are to learn the lessons of defeat quickly.
He has nothing to be ashamed of. He has helped create a raft of new policies most of which are pretty good.
The questions are primarily to do with presentation and campaigning. Why, for example, did his emblematic policy on One Nation not figure strongly enough? What deficiencies are there in the One Nation narrative as developed by Ed? Why did we fail to escape from the Tory narrative with its neo-liberal assumptions?
In this regard, I noted with pleasure Liz Kendall’s refusal to be drawn by Andrew Marr demanding to hear a policy on benefits for workers from elsewhere in the EU. She insisted that the EU referendum must be about greater issues than those over which UKIP and the Tories obsess. Ed would have responded by insisting on talking about enforcing wages at a level where in-work benefits are not payable. That’s OK. But it doesn’t escape from a narrative about money and nothing but money.
Labour failed because it is spiteful and envious and hates pretty well everyone.
Why don’t you face up to the questions:
http://tinyurl.com/J4Rinka
search for: can’t deny the facts
Are you a troll because you seem to be trolling Justice4Rinka? We have someone just like you on the Spectator’s Coffee House called telemachus. If you can’t engage with someone, constantly repeating the same line makes you look a bit of a numpty.
That’s fair enough, but when you take part in a forum one presumes it’s to debate the issues so I presented him with some facts and he just continued to throw mud. Don’t defend that. It’s not worthy of you.
Your assertions are not facts. You plucked your “facts” out of your arse hole.
Why does Labour love billionaires so much? Why does Labour give them passports and peerages and any law they want?
Justice4Rinka
There is a little article on conservative home that talks about hatred, which I have added to with a comment about your behavior. Your posts have encouraged me to register with them and I would urge other Labour supporters to do so. Let’s take the fight to them – but always be polite and stick to the facts.
http://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2015/06/graeme-archer-hatred-and-after.html
Well, that worked out well, John. Suddenly this morning I’m getting upticks all over the place. Thanks!
Your welcome.
Like what?
Justice4Rinka Ignoring the facts…
http://tinyurl.com/J4Rinka
search for: can’t deny the facts
Chimera [in Greek mythology]: (1) A fire-breathing Female with a Lion’s head, a Goat’s body and a Serpent’s Tail or (2) A thing which is hoped for but which is illusory or impossible to achieve. Labour needs (1) as it already has plenty of (2).
What’s with all the capital letters for common nouns in the middle of a sentence?
You talk about “real debate” but you never publish any of my thoughts and ideas. Perhaps because I am of the Grey Vote and to be ignored by Progress and my ideas are too “radical”. Yet it is said of me that I am ahead of the game and many of my predictions and ideas have come to pass, although I may not have had the credit, personally. At Progress conference last year, I said policies should be aimed at the Grey vote, since they are the ones who vote! But I was poo pooed. Perhaps it was the Grey vote that is utterly disillusioned with Labour and sunk it at the elections.
I send articles in but never even get a reply!! Yet I have been regularly published elsewhere, although it is difficult these days.
Vic Parks [email protected]
The main and most dangerous unity fetish, already prepared with a bedrock of settled complacency, is the Schadenfreude-driven conviction that Tory contention over the EU will hand us some sort of victory. Our volte-face on an EU referendum was gob-smacking: until election day it was the vilest heresy even to envisage a referendum, which ‘would destroy the British economy’ . The next day (or was it Sunday?) our new leader calmly accepted a referendum since opposing it was ‘not popular on the doorstep’. So what happened to the profound (?) analysis that told us that a referendum would destroy the British economy?
What is constant is the complacent analysis (delusion ?) that Tory woes on the EU must benefit us.
This was shallow and unreflective even in the 1990s; now it is not even a pretence at any tactics. Party politics is no longer a zero-sum game. And political economy never was. In 1987 it was pardonable, though childish, to wallow in the illusion that Jacques Delors and TUPE would halt the Tory onslaught in he class struggle. UKIP is only the local example of an almost EU-wide populist upheaval; the EU is not the unquestioned haven portrayed by the ‘Centres for European Reform’ – a fraudulent title, since pretty well all calls for EU reform are merely a thinly disguised apologia for the unquestioned regime of the Brussels Commissioners. Yet increasing the influence of the so-called European Parliament would only deepen the scope of the EU nascent super-state. The undoubted crisis of the Eurozone has only intensified the missionary zeal of the heirs of Monnet to create a political superstate whatever the economic cost to the peoples of Europe.
It is vital therefore that our reflections and policy forums on the EU must address this issue: are we going to advocate joining the Euro? if not, are we going to allow the Eurozone to dominate the EU? if not, how not?
Whatever the damage the Tories may be inflicting on themselves, continued complacency on these issues will mangle any hopes we have of reconstructing our party, no doubt to the benefit of UKIP. Those infatuated with the Euro-anthem should bear in mind that Schiller’s Ode to Joy (Freude) was originally an ode to Freedom (Freiheit) – a slogan we are in danger of having targeted against us.
So we must develop and discuss, then propose, genuine reforms to the EU; our very Immigration mug should remind us that scepticism about the EU as currently constituted has very widespread support amongst the British people, which in this regard at least we have already shown ourselves unprepared to resist.
fraternally (braterstwo, to use Polish…)
Ben Cosin
Re: Justice4Rinka vs john McCormack
Is the former a Tory trying to undermine Labour morale? I have read their posts on other articles and the bludgeoning of each other . Of course, there is some truth on both sides, except that John is perhaps more persuasive and having reasoned arguments. To suggest that he is a “troll” is ridiculous. J4R uses emotive arguments such as limbless children, etc. but the devastation in the Middle East, Africa etc. is a complex issue going back many, many years perhaps thousands. We might blame colonisation, (Turks, Greeks, Romans, white Europeans), religion, different cultures and so on. In the contemporary world we might blame the armaments trade, poverty, discrimination, etc. MAN’S (note the emphasis on MAN) inhumanity to others is not a profound statement but true and has driven human kind since the Stone Age.
For many of us in the older generation, we are in despair with the pain and trauma the innocent citizens of these regions undergo. The “solutions” invoke a series of moral dilemmas. Intervention into Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya has led to anarchy. One wonders whether the ordinary citizens were better off under dictators, despite all their injustices and brutality.
Returning to the “Why Labour Lost” [a rout] debate many in the party are utterly demoralised. Like so many voters’ comments: “It is not the party of the People,” “It does not represent me,” etc. SNP success was due to Community/Leftish policies and a backlash against the Westminster Bubble and Career Politicians who do not connect with “ordinary people.” I remember one Progress comment some time ago “You (Career Politicians) don’t get it!”
J4K raises the “politics of envy argument.” – “robbing people you envy.” Socialism is about moral principles of justice, equality, caring for others (Co-operative principles and values). Thatcher, her cronies and the Right Wing press fundamentally changed the nature of society. We DID care about each other, yet Thatcherism and Reaganism with Monetarist policies bought about Individualism, intolerance, f..k you jack I’m alright, why should I pay for……I don’t use it (e.g. single person with no children), consumerism, greed, Privatisation, PPPs, PFIs and so on. I know because I was there and I did not read it out of a book! Unfortunately, New Labour perpetuated the culture. Implicitly, Mandelson supported the “greed is good” sound bite. They worshiped the “Market Philosophy.” Thus, we have seen the obscenity of the rich getting richer and the poor being kicked by Tories. We are in a top down class war, rather than the conventional bottom up. The hypocrisy of Cameron saying that his party is of “working people” when many of these are being subsidised on benefits! If you are a Tory mole, J4K, you really ought to look at your values and those of the Tory Party. The rich leaders are selling off the People’s assets to all their rich mates at knock down rates, to make them EVEN RICHER!
Many of us in the Grey Vote value the nature, wildlife and the countryside, yet Tories (of ALL parties) is destroying it by huge housing developments, simply out of selfish self survival and their greedy, rich mates. For the present, this so-called “growth” has worked with their re-election but the bubble will burst and we will go back into recession. But will Labour be in a position to take over? If we have another Career Politician as leader, god help us, the poor and the less well off!
Aw, Geezer – you were doing so well until you got to “Socialism is about moral principles of justice, equality, caring for others”.
Conservatism is about all those things too. It’s just that you can’t pay for any of them without a capitalist economy. First you need the wealth creation, then you do all the other stuff. Voting Labour actually thwarts all Labour’s ostensible goals.
This is why people like me, who want a strong and effective NHS, voted Conservative last month. If you completely f>ck the economy, then you end up with Byrne’s infamous “there’s no money” admission. If you run schools, social services and the NHS for the benefit of the producers, on the principle that the producers are above reproach and the punters should be grateful, then you have brought back squalid Dickensian workhouses a la Mid Staffs. You bring back institutional child abuse (Rotherham), and you bring back sink schools (everywhere).
The conundrum for Labour is, what are you for, exactly, if there’s no money? And if it’s all about the money, then between Labour and Tory, who wrecks the economy and who mends it?
You need a clause 4 moment on the NHS where you admit the Tories won’t in fact privatise it (nobody believes this ancient lie). Then you need another where you recognise that a centre left Labour may in fact agree with much of what the Tories do.
Forget demonising the Tories. With UKIP on the scene, all the nasty right wing scum have gone there.
Maybe you need a left wing UKIP that takes all the loonies away and leaves a rump that’s reasonable, electable and doesn’t base its appeal on hating people.
HTH!
I wonder how old you are and what you do for a living? Are YOU comfortably off? Most Tories are well off or THINK that they are or brainwashed by the Tory Press.
I am now 70 and I lived through years of Thatcherism. Professor Friedman was their guru. I remember Keith Joseph infamously saying: “If it doesn’t make a profit, let it go to the wall.” That meant that those employees were thrown on the scrap heap. Whole communities “North of
Watford” were devastated. Lives were ruined, under the “caring Conservatives.” The pound sank so low that foreigners could buy up good companies (that often cared about their workers) for peanuts. Then we saw their assets stripped and workers’ pension funds (that they had paid into) liquidated, filling capitalists’ pockets. The Sachi ad showing the queue of unemployed under Labour and the Right Wing press helped Thatcher win, yet the irony was that she doubled the
dole queues! Tories were incredibly unpopular and she would have been chucked out of office, had it not been for “Falklands factor” – some say that she contrived that war!
“Socialism is about moral principles of justice, equality, caring for others”. ‘Conservatism is about all those things too.’ It may have been the case many, many years ago before Thatcherism. But have you not heard of the Nasty Party? I remember the moral pillars of the established church criticising Thatcherism for what it was doing to the nation, especially the poor. As to your belief that Tories are best to run the economy, historical evidence does not support the view. I remember Black Wednesday when the Base Rate went up by the hour with Chancellor Lawson. We were living on borrowed money, both the government AND individuals, which Lawson had encouraged. Were the riots under Tory governments? Usually, they are the poor and oppressed, kicking back against the system and establishment.
A little bit of Capitalism is a good thing, but Corporate Capitalism is out of control and based on greed. Was it Super Mac who criticised Tiny Roland as being the unacceptable face of Capitalism? It has to be morally wrong when, for example an individual can have more wealth than the GDP of a small nation. Wealth is not just about money. It is about caring for others, nature, the environment, relationships, the legacy we pass on to our descendants, etc. Nevertheless, there are alternatives to Capitalism, contrary to your belief e.g. co-operation, Mutuals, the Social Economy.
Your government is destroying the countryside by building vast estates on green fields, to pretend that there is “growth.” They are not providing homes for the homeless but investment properties for foreigners and well off people. It is also selling off the nation’s assets to its rich mates. Super Mac said “And what are you going to sell when you’ve sold-off the candelabra?” This is not prudently managing the economy but short term asset stripping to plug the gaps in the economy.
I am sorry, J4R but your blinkered view of the world is not reality. The problems the world faces are complex. There are no simple solutions. For example, the Market and Capitalism is based upon confidence. When that goes, it collapses. If you are relatively young, you may see the world differently when you are older. You need to stop believing Tory rhetoric and look critically around you. Your Tory government is still Thatcherite but a different version. It represents the rich and resents the poor (oh the Plebs!) and attacks the state. Gove with his “reforms” has done much long lasting damage to State Education and staff morale (I wrote an article: “Is Gove Ignorant or cleverly Destructive?”). Teachers are leaving in droves. Now, he is Lord Chancellor and he’s never been a lawyer, as he was not a teacher! I dread to think the damage that will be done to “justice.” Already, your government has set the Law on the path of: “A law for the rich and no law for the poor”! And if you do not believe that Tories are about Privatisation of the NHS, you are naive. It started with the last top down “reforms” under the coalition. Simple examples being GPs and lifting the cap on the amount of Private patients in our hospitals. The NHS and education runs on the good will and a SENSE OF VOCATION of the staff, but your overnment’s “reforms” are seriously affecting this culture, which I guess you do not understand? I suspect all my effort in writing this will not convince you! But I’ve tried! However, it might influence other readers, if there is any left!
All I wish to do is debate, learn from our mistakes and find a better way forward. Unfortunately, I have not been able to do that with J4R even though I have been prepared to offer information in which Gordon Brown accepted some blame. However, thanks for your amazing contribution, and for realizing that I have tried to use reason.
Interesting note today in the Guardian: it is reported that Osborne wants to run a budget surplus and that treasury figures show that this has only been done 7 times in the last 50 years, with a run of three of them in 1990’s to 2000 – when Gordon Brown was chancellor. So some of the stick he gets is unwarranted.
Anyway, I am not far behind you in years and I am confident that we will win again, possibly even in 2020. Labour and the Tories are not very different in some policy areas but there is one key difference that holds us miles apart and which even J4R will eventually come to realize…
The Tories are never going to be able to stop doing what is right for the elite, even when it is wrong for the majority: just look at the way their donors behave down at 1, Hyde Park. Meanwhile, it is Labour’s wish to help everyone – especially the poor.
When the population as a whole realizes that the Tories are letting them down because of their allegiance to the elites then things will change dramatically and will stay that way for a long time afterwards. So fight on. because we have right on our side.
Thanks, John for your compliments. I think that we have a similar outlook on life and, perhaps similar experiences. I came from a working class background – apprentice electrician, RNR, Merchant Navy, FE teaching. Yes, as baby boomers we have had the best years and I really feel sorry for the mass of young people. Of course, kids of rich parents will be fine!. Nevertheless, we experienced deprivation that they have not e.g. cold lino, no heating, holes in our school trousers bums, etc. whereas the young take for granted central heating and fitted carpets. Although we benefitted, so did they.
We in the Grey Vote see things differently and, for example, value the British countryside and way of life. My four adult children are all in Australia (being dual nationality), the eldest a surgeon. Although J4R dismisses our experience, it is more real than reading stuff out of a book. Degrees and PhDs in Humanities are a foundation not an end in the “University of Life.” We can understand that, but you cannot put old heads on young shoulders. I have experienced a great deal in my life – travel, children, Divorce, Single Parent Dad, LIP (Appeal Court), teaching, trauma, emotional pain, love from girlfriends and children, REAL comradeship in the MN, RNR, etc. and I greatly value that as it gives one EMPATHY. Even the bad experience is good experience as one learns from it. J4R dismisses my arguments as a “blast from the past,” yet we have a lot to learn from “true” history as it often repeats itself. The BBC’s Radio 4 “Long View” programme is very informative, for example.
I despair at the Career Politicians in the Westminster Bubble (in all parties). Often they are gutless and incompetent. If I was one of them, I would feel a fraud. Awhile back, Chris Bryant was going to attack Tesco but, in a matter of 24 hours he scuttled away into a corner and ended up praising the organisation! At a Progress fringe, I asked Liz Kendle (Shadow Health Minister) whether she had worked in the Public Sector. She was like a rabbit caught in headlights and stuttered “Er .. Er …No.” This has been the problem with contemporary politics, politicians in charge of Ministries of which they have no PRACTICAL experience. That’s why servicemen/women/chiefs, Doctors, nurses, teachers, business people, trades people, etc. have nothing but contempt for them. It is little wonder that John Woodcock (Chair of Progress) admits to getting Depressed! If we get a Career Politician leader, it will be the death knell for Labour. Do we not have some mature MPs with charisma? Johnson is on people’s lips but he does not want it. What about Hilary Benn? Squeaky clean on expenses and a stated “centralist.”
Gove (a non-teacher) is the arch Career Politician and the damage he has done to Education is going to be long lasting. God help the legal profession and justice for “ordinary folk”! How can it be justified that the Lord Chancellor is a non-lawyer?!!! [Oh, he’s Cameron’s mate!].
Bright Young Things (aspiring Career politicians) dominate “Think Tanks,” charities, NGOs, etc. waiting for the “Big One”[MP] .These parallel careers still influence policy and political culture and form the “In Crowd.” Again, many do not have direct, grassroots experience of the organisation they head up or work in. Surely, mature people with years of experience are best placed to head/work in these organisations?
The Tory Government and councils are carpet bagging our public assets, no doubt selling them off to their mates so that they can get even richer! They are destroying the countryside by massive building projects on green fields. The Green Belt was sacrosanct but the Tories (of all parties!) has totally undermined it. Even SSSIs have been concreted over or damaged by developments.
I had thought about a new “Nice Party” aimed at the Grey Vote to try and get more mature thinking and protection of our “green and pleasant land,” to avoid it totally going under concrete. The NT, RSPB, CPRE, etc do what they can but they are overwhelmed by the onslaught by the “New Breed” politicians – not only Career Politicians but Business People wedded to the Market Philosophy.
John. I’m afraid J4R [whether a man, woman or group?!] is a hopeless cause! “His” hatred of Labour, UKIP (called ‘scum’ by J4R but, in reality decent people, Right Wingers and disaffected voters) and BL workers (called “bastards”), is almost psychotic! Some of my students at Oxford CFE were British Leyland apprentices. They were nice, decent lads and, now, no doubt, decent adults. Contrary to conventional belief, many were Thatcher supporters not rampant Marxists. I used to have similar discussions about “scroungers on the dole, etc” and they helped me to understand what socialism meant. As one said: “It’s all about values?” Unions were strong and perhaps undemocratic and overbearing, but management was also to blame for strikes. They even provoked them when there was over-production! Car workers’ wages were a bench mark for many other workers outside BL and they indirectly benefitted.
Well, must go now, as my girlfriend (Daily Mail reader on Saturdays!) will moan that I’m not getting on with “stuff”! – “wasting my time writing” but, like many of us in these columns, we feel passionate about the world and cannot help ourselves! I’m sorry if readers feel this post is boring, but what I have said to John may by inspire thoughts, which writers want to do to make a better world. Nevertheless, I suspect that few read these posts and those who started reading have disappeared! Still, we try!
John, if you would like to contact me personally, I have set up a [email protected]. [68 is the same as 69 but she owes me one, most women’s favourite!]. If I get abuse [e.g. from J4R], I can shut it down!
Sorry guys, but my intentions are good!
So nice to meet a fellow human being.
I will be in touch.
In the meantime, I shall try not to respond to J4Rs hate campaign.
“..you can’t pay for any of them without a capitalist economy.” Absolutely right!
But, it doesn’t have to be just about the money (as has been said by OGG).
Everyone used to care a lot more about others but this was destroyed by Thatcher. I remember noticing the way people’s speech changed. However, she did some good things as well as some terrible things.
I remember my students at college talking about how they would be better off voting for Thatcher, though I felt they wouldn’t be. As a teacher I had an okay salary so it was easy for me to vote for what other people got out of it. I voted for the benefit of the students, they voted for themselves. They got their way and were worse off because of it.
As someone with an okay pension I can afford to be thinking of others, though I have always voted for the general good. What I am unhappy about is the way the better off do not think about others. The young should be getting more support, not the better off pensioners. The baby-boomers like me are doing okay, so let’s give the unemployed young people a start. Don’t work until you drop, but stop early, enjoy life more and release your job to others. That’s the way I think. But your comment about earning the money from what capitalists do is right. As for entrepreneurs: I had a go, my sons will do so too.
In that last election I got very disappointed with the number of people that started off with “It’s better for me if….” or “What am I going to get…” or “They never did anything for me…”. Me, me, me. It should be us, us, us. More specifically, if you are young, it should be about you not me. We are not going to survive with a me-first system.
“everyone used to care about others”? Are you bloody mad?
The miners cared about others did they? The Winter of Discontent – they cared about others did they? Red Robbo at British Leyland – they cared about others did they?
What about the staff of Labour’s filthy Mid Staffs workhouse, caringly letting old ladies starve to death in their own shit. Caring, huh?
Labour have been obsessed with seeming ‘on message’ for far too long. We are intelligent people and so are the electorate. Unity comes from within, not from an attempt to appear united. We should have far more open debate within the party, and be relaxed about it. You only need collective responsibility for a cabinet, not a whole political party always and everywhere. If anyone in the party, wherever they are, are simply trying to find out and a follow a party line before they speak, the electorate can see this and it just gives one more impression that politicians are not authentic. We don’t want to look like zombies repeating a line, we should be humans talking from our heart, accepting that we are part of a broad church, listening to one another, and changing our views as circumstances change. Most of the country’s intellectuals are on the left. Let’s have have an open debate.
I wonder how old you are and what you do for a living? Are YOU comfortably off? Most Tories are well off or THINK that they are or brainwashed by the Tory Press.
I am now 70 and I lived through years of Thatcherism. Professor Friedman was their guru. I remember Keith Joseph infamously saying: “If it doesn’t make a profit, let it go to the wall.” That meant that those employees were thrown on the scrap heap. Whole communities “North of
Watford” were devastated. Lives were ruined, under the “caring Conservatives.” The pound sank so low that foreigners could buy up good companies (that often cared about their workers) for peanuts. Then we saw their assets stripped and workers’ pension funds (that they had paid into) liquidated, filling capitalists’ pockets. The Sachi ad showing the queue of unemployed under Labour and the Right Wing press helped Thatcher win, yet the irony was that she doubled the
dole queues! Tories were incredibly unpopular and she would have been chucked out of office, had it not been for “Falklands factor” – some say that she contrived that war!
“Socialism is about moral principles of justice, equality, caring for others”. ‘Conservatism is about all those things too.’ It may have been the case many, many years ago before Thatcherism. But have you not heard of the Nasty Party? I remember the moral pillars of the established church criticising Thatcherism for what it was doing to the nation, especially the poor. As to your belief that Tories are best to run the economy, historical evidence does not support the view. I remember Black Wednesday when the Base Rate went up by the hour with Chancellor Lawson. We were living on borrowed money, both the government AND individuals, which Lawson had encouraged. Were the riots under Tory governments? Usually, they are the poor and oppressed, kicking back against the system and establishment.
A little bit of Capitalism is a good thing, but Corporate Capitalism is out of control and based on greed. Was it Super Mac who criticised Tiny Roland as being the unacceptable face of Capitalism? It has to be morally wrong when, for example an individual can have more wealth than the GDP of a small nation. Wealth is not just about money. It is about caring for others, nature, the environment, relationships, the legacy we pass on to our descendants, etc. Nevertheless, there are alternatives to Capitalism, contrary to your belief e.g. co-operation, Mutuals, the Social Economy.
Your government is destroying the countryside by building vast estates on green fields, to pretend that there is “growth.” They are not providing homes for the homeless but investment properties for foreigners and well off people. It is also selling off the nation’s assets to its rich mates. Super Mac said “And what are you going to sell when you’ve sold-off the candelabra?” This is not prudently managing the economy but short term asset stripping to plug the gaps in the economy.
I am sorry, J4R but your blinkered view of the world is not reality. The problems the world faces are complex. There are no simple solutions. For example, the Market and Capitalism is based upon confidence. When that goes, it collapses. If you are relatively young, you may see the world differently when you are older. You need to stop believing Tory rhetoric and look critically around you. Your Tory government is still Thatcherite but a different version. It represents the rich and resents the poor (oh the Plebs!) and attacks the state. Gove with his “reforms” has done much long lasting damage to State Education and staff morale (I wrote an article: “Is Gove Ignorant or cleverly Destructive?”). Teachers are leaving in droves. Now, he is Lord Chancellor and he’s never been a lawyer, as he was not a teacher! I dread to think the damage that will be done to “justice.” Already, your government has set the Law on the path of: “A law for the rich and no law for the poor”! And if you do not believe that Tories are about Privatisation of the NHS, you are naive. It started with the last top down “reforms” under the coalition. Simple examples being GPs and lifting the cap on the amount of Private patients in our hospitals. The NHS and education runs on the good will and a SENSE OF VOCATION of the staff, but your overnment’s “reforms” are seriously affecting this culture, which I guess you do not understand? I suspect all my effort in writing this will not convince you! But I’ve tried! However, it might influence other readers, if there is any left!
Christ, what a blast from the 1970s that was.
There is so much that is delusional in your rant that it would take half a day to debunk it all. But probably the most evil bit of ignorance in what you wrote was the guff about how “employees were thrown on the scrap heap”. See, it’s like this.
– Crappy loss-making companies like BL were kept afloat by taxpayer subsidies.
– Those subsidies came from taxes levied on successful companies.
– Good companies were therefore robbed to fund bad ones.
– This was simply concealed unemployment.
– The bastard workers weren’t even grateful of course and rewarded us with strikes and the Austin Allegro.
– without the subsidies some failed, but some succeeded and some even ended up paying rather than receiving taxes.
Your whole post stinks of entitlement to other people’s money.
Then there are your claims about “the rich”. Don’t give me that crap. Labour loves billionaires. They get UK passports, they get laws re-written the way they want them, they get peerages. Labour never, ever, ever attacks the rich. Labour attacks middle-class workers on modest salaries and it robs their pensions and savings. The real rich you suck up to.
OK strikes and the Allegro is classic. I could have picked other posts… Do keep it up you’re fantastic value 🙂
My last post was in reply to Justice4Rinka, below, in answer to my post, starting “Aw Geezer…”
Justice4Rinka I really pity you. And it is little wonder that you DO belong to the “Nasty Party.” Quite frankly, do you have any compassion or understanding within you? Perhaps you need to do an anger management course, unless, of course, you are a “troll” employed by the Tory Party (as John suggests) to undermine rational debate in these columns. To accuse me of a “rant” is hypocrisy, in view of the verbal diarrhea you pour out. Mind you, it is a trait of young, Career Politicians. Of course, you did not answer my questions regarding yourself and thus happy to hide behind the anonymity of J4R. Perhaps you are not a real person but a group of people. It takes guts to put your head over the parapet. When I did my teacher training all those years ago, I remember the question: “What is an educated Man?” O’Conner said it was one who made up his mind, but not irrecoverably so. As you get older, one realises how little one knows and how complex things are. There are no simple solutions. However, political decisions affect all of us. I used to say to my students ”Think of a subject and I will relate it back to politics.”
It is a paradox that you use Justice4Rinka. I wonder why you devised that name? You certainly do not seem to understand the concept of “Social Justice.” For me, the obscene inequality that
has built up under both Tory and Labour governments is not about envy, as you try to portray (Tory dogma – the “politics of envy” – which tries to justify inequality) but a question of social justice. After Early Retirement I went into voluntary politics because I wanted to see a “Caring, Just Society.” I have to say that I am very disillusioned although I have met some decent, genuine people in politics and the Co-operative Movement over the years, but also many nasty, selfish arseholes. I do not know whether you ARE a person (or a group) but I leave you with this: “There is pleasure in giving pleasure (and helping people).” It beats getting “loads of money”!!!