Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 16,025
|
Post by Sibboleth on Dec 11, 2016 22:07:10 GMT
The problem is our inability to compensate for that by running up the score elsewhere. This is what frustrates me the most about the present leadership. They clearly understand that this is advisable and want it to happen but seem completely uninterested in actually trying to make it happen. Written (and said!) this a bunch of times already, but there's a real 'wrong answer to the right question' vibe to Corbyn. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Dec 11, 2016 22:18:40 GMT
The way round this is to propose redistributive policies that benefit the majority of the population, often even the overwhelming majority of the population. Which is where anti-austerity politics - even of the mildest Milibandian hue - falls down electorally; a lot of people have been hurt badly by government cutbacks but most people haven't. There are also alternative populist approaches that haven't been tried; why not run strongly against managerialism and jobsworths generally? I guess that would upset the PCS, but they aren't affiliated and their members aren't exactly a hotbed of support so that's acceptable collateral damage... See, I think ultimately socialism has to be altruistic - and with the social divides which exist now, the situation is slearly different from the 40's when most people clearly benefitted from the welfare state The problem with your suggestion is that like Blair's policies it may give some help to those at the bottom, but will do nothing to create a more equal society And if we are to do something about employment that means more public sector jobs, noit less, as its perfectly understandable why profit making small organisations won't wish to employ long term unemployed people with mental health problems which may prevent them working full time, or who have a disrupted employment record - so i don;t think an all out attack on public servants will do anything to promote the idea of the 'public good' If socialism is about losing whilst feeling good about how altruistic we're being, then socialism is a shit idea. Democratic socialism as I understand it is about people working to make a better life for all of us. Your interpretation, with its strong overtones of helping those less fortunate than ourselves, combines a lack of electoral appeal with a clear liberal paternalism. Frankly, it seems strikingly Blairite to me. Needless to say, helping those at the bottom would do a substantial amount to create a more equal society, but in any case you're confusing strategy with policy. You can do an awful lot to help or hurt people in government. Very little you do in opposition has any concrete impact on anything at all. And your model of a public sector that exists to employ the unemployable is just absurd - not least because significant parts of it have much stronger reasons for not employing such difficult cases than the private sector does. There are plenty of part-time jobs in the private sector and plenty of disabled people working within it. In any case, nobody, able-bodied or disabled, is helped by stifling bureaucracy. This bureaucracy, incidentally, is these days often connected with shortages of employees. This is the problem. You don't want to try. Which is your prerogative, but if you don't want to be in a centre-left broad tent party, maybe you shouldn't be. There are plenty of more important things Labour could be doing that having the same old endlessly circular arguments about electoral reform which nobody else cares about. It may take another two electoral defeats, but in time the party will come to realise that big-tent politics only works, electorally, for the Conservatives at the moment. As opposed to small tent politics, which works for nobody ever. |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Dec 11, 2016 22:28:13 GMT
There are a clear minority of people who are really not doing very well at all. The cliched term of 'left behind' is used rather too often, but not without reason - and in an increasingly competitive environment there's no sign of them catching up, and I don't think its possible to increase their chances without very definite programmes which will cost. And the reality of our society is huge inequality and yes, it does mean the fortunate having to recognise their good fortune - and be willing to do something to help others who haven't been so favoured by the way society operates.
My friends who run small businesses wouldn't agree with you - and most of them aren't heartless people, but their businesses just can't have the sort of flexibility that a larger organisation can. That doesn't of course mean they do so in practice, but there is far more opportunity there, though considerable cultural change will be needed. However, only the public sector can be expected to provide the sort of supported employment opportunities required whether that be directly or via subsidy and structured programmes.
I think there should be more parties and electoral reform. Have done for a long time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2016 22:51:38 GMT
There are a clear minority of people who are really not doing very well at all. The cliched term of 'left behind' is used rather too often, but not without reason - and in an increasingly competitive environment there's no sign of them catching up, and I don't think its possible to increase their chances without very definite programmes which will cost. And the reality of our society is huge inequality and yes, it does mean the fortunate having to recognise their good fortune - and be willing to do something to help others who haven't been so favoured by the way society operates. My friends who run small businesses wouldn't agree with you - and most of them aren't heartless people, but their businesses just can't have the sort of flexibility that a larger organisation can. That doesn't of course mean they do so in practice, but there is far more opportunity there, though considerable cultural change will be needed. However, only the public sector can be expected to provide the sort of supported employment opportunities required whether that be directly or via subsidy and structured programmes. I think there should be more parties and electoral reform. Have done for a long time. Maduro-esque vision there folks. |
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 12,005
|
Post by Khunanup on Dec 12, 2016 0:18:42 GMT
There are problems in seats like Lincoln relating to expanded boundaries. But it's not about lack of appeal in places like North Hykeham - our appeal was fairly limited there even when we were riding high in the polls, and realistically that's because the sort of policies we've always had and are always going to have to have don't have much traction in places like that. The problem is our inability to compensate for that by running up the score elsewhere. We can get the votes we always get, and the votes we get from ideological commitment, but we're failing catastrophically at getting votes because people think we've got the best answers to their problems. I think we've just argued exactly the same thing from slightly different starting points. It doesn't matter where the votes come from, you're struggling to get enough of them to win general elections. It's the Lab/Tory switch voters that ultimately matter in most of the country, even with the added complication of UKIP. Unfortunately there are vast swathes of your party leadership/membership who simply do not believe/cannot bring themselves to believe that those kind of switch voters even exist. |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Dec 12, 2016 0:43:18 GMT
There are problems in seats like Lincoln relating to expanded boundaries. But it's not about lack of appeal in places like North Hykeham - our appeal was fairly limited there even when we were riding high in the polls, and realistically that's because the sort of policies we've always had and are always going to have to have don't have much traction in places like that. The problem is our inability to compensate for that by running up the score elsewhere. We can get the votes we always get, and the votes we get from ideological commitment, but we're failing catastrophically at getting votes because people think we've got the best answers to their problems. I think we've just argued exactly the same thing from slightly different starting points. It doesn't matter where the votes come from, you're struggling to get enough of them to win general elections. It's the Lab/Tory switch voters that ultimately matter in most of the country, even with the added complication of UKIP. Unfortunately there are vast swathes of your party leadership/membership who simply do not believe/cannot bring themselves to believe that those kind of switch voters even exist. Not so. More that the compromises needed to win their votes may be so great that we end up disposing of other voters in consequence. It's not necessarily just a left-right thing either. I just think it's becoming harder and harder to encompass so many fundamentally incompatible views in one party It's the product of the electoral system of course which I assume you don't suppirt either. |
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 12,005
|
Post by Khunanup on Dec 12, 2016 0:58:22 GMT
I think we've just argued exactly the same thing from slightly different starting points. It doesn't matter where the votes come from, you're struggling to get enough of them to win general elections. It's the Lab/Tory switch voters that ultimately matter in most of the country, even with the added complication of UKIP. Unfortunately there are vast swathes of your party leadership/membership who simply do not believe/cannot bring themselves to believe that those kind of switch voters even exist. Not so. More that the compromises needed to win their votes may be so great that we end up disposing of other voters in consequence. It's not necessarily just a left-right thing either. I just think it's becoming harder and harder to encompass so many fundamentally incompatible views in one party It's the product of the electoral system of course which I assume you don't suppirt either. Yes, the electoral system creates this poor situation but you have to be in power to change the electoral system (or attempt to change it). |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Dec 12, 2016 11:02:53 GMT
Which is why I would support a limited electoral arrangement for that purpose
|
|
mboy
Liberal
Listen. Think. Speak.
Posts: 23,692
|
Post by mboy on Dec 12, 2016 11:12:42 GMT
There are plenty of more important things Labour could be doing that having the same old endlessly circular arguments about electoral reform which nobody else cares about. Actually quite a few of us do care about that!  |
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Figgis on Dec 12, 2016 11:25:25 GMT
There are plenty of more important things Labour could be doing that having the same old endlessly circular arguments about electoral reform which nobody else cares about. Actually quite a few of us do care about that! Well, of course- you're a member of the party that obsesses about electoral reform and the EU above all else. Shame that those are the only two things to have been explicitly rejected in nationwide referendums in my lifetime. |
|
mboy
Liberal
Listen. Think. Speak.
Posts: 23,692
|
Post by mboy on Dec 12, 2016 11:30:37 GMT
Touché...
|
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Dec 12, 2016 12:20:43 GMT
Not so. More that the compromises needed to win their votes may be so great that we end up disposing of other voters in consequence. It's not necessarily just a left-right thing either. I just think it's becoming harder and harder to encompass so many fundamentally incompatible views in one party It's the product of the electoral system of course which I assume you don't suppirt either. If the electoral system changes you will still have to make compromises, only they will be made after the election in the coalition negotiations, not before. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,889
|
Post by The Bishop on Dec 12, 2016 12:48:03 GMT
But I think quite a few will be more comfortable with it being that way.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Figgis on Dec 12, 2016 13:55:42 GMT
But I think quite a few will be more comfortable with it being that way. When the electorate are no longer able to voice their opinion? Yes, I'm sure there will be many who find it infinitely preferable. |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Dec 12, 2016 14:24:43 GMT
Not so. More that the compromises needed to win their votes may be so great that we end up disposing of other voters in consequence. It's not necessarily just a left-right thing either. I just think it's becoming harder and harder to encompass so many fundamentally incompatible views in one party It's the product of the electoral system of course which I assume you don't suppirt either. If the electoral system changes you will still have to make compromises, only they will be made after the election in the coalition negotiations, not before. Of course but I think that's far more honest and the choice is there as to which ones are acceptable and which aren't |
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Dec 12, 2016 14:25:37 GMT
But I think quite a few will be more comfortable with it being that way. When the electorate are no longer able to voice their opinion? Yes, I'm sure there will be many who find it infinitely preferable. That's the trouble with the electorate's 'opinion'. There are many opinions within it, and FPTP ensures a fairly significant proportion of them are - by and large - ignored. |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Dec 12, 2016 14:29:22 GMT
When the electorate are no longer able to voice their opinion? Yes, I'm sure there will be many who find it infinitely preferable. That's the trouble with the electorate's 'opinion'. There are many opinions within it, and FPTP ensures a fairly significant proportion of them are - by and large - ignored. And that includes within the large parties as well as the views of the smaller ones. 36% of 62% turnout does not constitute a majority And some of that figure may well have been primarily voting against another party rather than for the one they voted for - I did exactly that in 2005. |
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Figgis on Dec 12, 2016 14:30:12 GMT
When the electorate are no longer able to voice their opinion? Yes, I'm sure there will be many who find it infinitely preferable. That's the trouble with the electorate's 'opinion'. There are many opinions within it, and FPTP ensures a fairly significant proportion of them are - by and large - ignored. And any post-election coalition formation will ignore them all. |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Dec 12, 2016 14:31:25 GMT
That's the trouble with the electorate's 'opinion'. There are many opinions within it, and FPTP ensures a fairly significant proportion of them are - by and large - ignored. And any post-election coalition formation will ignore them all. Don't agree at all |
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Figgis on Dec 12, 2016 14:34:50 GMT
And any post-election coalition formation will ignore them all. Don't agree at all You're right. All those people who voted for a C/LD coalition in 2010... |
|
