[all_his_engines]

Dave: Thank you for an engaging response, which raises some good points. However, please allow me to respond to a few of them

Originally Posted by Dave

There are plenty of parties that either appeal to a particular social group or are devoted to single-issue politics. The Greens, UKIP, the BNP, whatever the successors to the Judean People's Front call themselves this week (Solidarity, Socialist Workers Party, etc etc.), Pensioners Alliance and so on. To suggest that all political parties employ a "catch all" philosophy is wrongheaded.

You are correct, there are many smaller issue parties around. As my point concerned parties seeking a parliamentary majority, I should have specified that it is only all parties seeking to win power that are "catch-all" parties.

Originally Posted by Dave

Look at what Labour's done since they came to power. They introduced the minimum wage, tax credits for working families on low to medium incomes, introduced employment rights for people in previously precarious and brought about a change in British society that made discussing politics in terms of class division irrelevant. Much of the "working" class have Sky TV, mortgages and disposable income these days. The debate has moved on from the parameters set by the class warriors of previous decades.

The debate may have moved on but I would argue that the divisons are still there, albeit perhaps slightly altered. Most of these initiatives aimed at helping people on lower incomes are the bare minimum of what is required to ensure that the gap between higher and lower earners does not widen too far in a time when the general affluence of higher earners increases. Let us also not forget that this is the Labour government whose recent alteration of the tax bands meant that - in crude terms - the poor will now be subsidising the rich.

Originally Posted by Dave

This is a charge that has been levelled against political parties since time immemorial. In fact, in the last thirty years we have seen two parties come to power, the Conservatives in 1979 and Labour in 1997, and both have introduced seismic changes in the political and social landscape of the country, And yet, while they were seeking election they were assailed by commentators accusing them of perpetuating the status quo and being ciphers rather than the agents of change. Both administrations proved their doubters wrong. I see no reason to think that the current generation of major party leaders should act any differently from their predecessors once they gain office.

This is a fair observation, but my point is just that political parties are NOT the same as they used to be. Could you give me some examples of changes made by the Labour party made since 1997 that you would consider to be "seismic", bearing in mind that all activities of a party must be considered relative to the social and economic context that they find themselves in? It could be that we have differing ideas of perspective.

Originally Posted by Dave

Ideology went by the wayside decades ago, and our country is better for it. Pragmatism and a sense of political reality replaced it and has been practiced by every politician who seeks election. And, to be honest, altering the balance of power in favour of the so-called "poorer people" is never going to be a vote winner, despite the fact that the poor in this country have a higher standard of living than almost any other country in the world, and that standard has been rising for decades. The poor will always be with us, the best our politicians can do is reduce their numbers by taking as many of them as possible beyond the poverty line. At the same time, however, they must consider the needs of working people, families, the elderly and those afflicted by crime and injustice.

It is, in my opinion, debatable to suggest that our country is better off without ideology. To abandon ideology is to abandon the suggestion that you can make important, lasting changes to the world we live in - and surely that should be why people want to get involved in politics. Of course, all ideology must be tempered with reality and practicality, but to cast it off entirely means that all you become is a government reacting to social and economic situations, rather than attempting to forge a path to a better future. The issue as I see it is that any ideology will alienate at least one part of the electorate, and as these parties are merely seeking the maximum number of votes, they abandon such lofty ideals as social change to the detriment of us all.

As Mr Officer has already pointed out, poverty is relative. But it shouldn't matter if a policy is a "vote-winner" as long as it's the right thing to do. Of course, then the point can be made that if a party doesn't pay attention to what wins votes then they won't be in power to affect such noble changes. We're also in danger of approaching a discussion about "what is right", which is a whole other can of worms....

I'm interested to know what you think.