»

[Le Stu]

ANAL WARTS TAKE POLL LEAD OVER BROWN - The Daily Mash

[Paranoid Android]

This result is terribly depressing. I'm not a Labour supporter, far from it, but Labour losing a seat like this makes it clear just how much of a certainty it is that the conservatives will win the next general election. The thought of David Cameron's Britain makes me sick.

[daveofficer]

Originally Posted by Paranoid Android

This result is terribly depressing. I'm not a Labour supporter, far from it, but Labour losing a seat like this makes it clear just how much of a certainty it is that the conservatives will win the next general election. The thought of David Cameron's Britain makes me sick.

well hopefully if the snp take a load of seats off labour then we won't be in cameron's britain for very long

[Pierre Von Mondragon]

I am VERY far from being a Nationalist (last refuge... etc), but am happy about the result, as Neu Labour have not been fit for purpose (that purpose being a redistributive party, dedicated to helping those parts of society that need it most), practically since inception. Although they have done positive things that would never have been started by a Tory regime (minimum wage, Sure Start), their craven unwillingness to confront inequality, or even admit that the Thatcherite legacy of greed is hugely socially corrosive, has repulsed vast swathes of their natural support, mine included. The government idea of centrism is trying to charm the enemies of social progress (business, Associated Press, bigots), while being unreasonably hard on their allies and natural supporters (public sector workers, the disadvantaged, people with a conscience, etc). Well this is the whirlwind made real, well and truly reaped. Have you seen the East End of Glasgow, it is a desolate place, Labour's near century of hegemony, at council and national level, have done nothing for them, yet the party assumes that their support will be eternal and unquestioning, this shows that those Politburo days are over.

[Chris]

As my girlfriend pointed out, announcing that you were scrapping incapacity benefits, days before a by-election in an area where a huge number of people are on incapacity benefits, probably didn't help Labour's cause.

[all_his_engines]

When are people going to realise that ALL modern political parties are just "catch-all" parties? None of them are going to help the poor and needy of society because the biggest voting block in general are the middle classes. The whole objective of parties these days is just to keep an even keel, and spin anything that looks bad. They aren't going to actually change anything (other than minor, insignificant gestures) because that would upset the status quo. Their sole raison d'etre is to acquire the largest number of votes possible, and then hold onto the power that affords them as long as possible. This means, of course, that you can't alter the balance of things in favour of poorer people, because then the more politically-active middle-age middle-class individuals would get upset. ANY party will act in this manner once in power with a majority, whether they call themselves Socialists, Nationalists or Conservatives. Ideology is nothing but a PR exercise, these days.

[KimyReizeger]

There's no point in reading / thinking about political parties. I feel sorry for anyone who can actually digest the trash they talk or even get interested that the SNP won some constituency 150 miles away. It doesn't say anything or make any grand statement - voting is entirely arbitrary and no-one really knows why they make the choices they do. All it means is that the winning party managed to contrive some realm of half-truth that appealed to voters more effectively than the loser.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by all_his_engines

When are people going to realise that ALL modern political parties are just "catch-all" parties?

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.

Originally Posted by all_his_engines

None of them are going to help the poor and needy of society because the biggest voting block in general are the middle classes.

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.

Originally Posted by all_his_engines

The whole objective of parties these days is just to keep an even keel, and spin anything that looks bad. They aren't going to actually change anything (other than minor, insignificant gestures) because that would upset the status quo. Their sole raison d'etre is to acquire the largest number of votes possible, and then hold onto the power that affords them as long as possible.

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.

Originally Posted by all_his_engines

This means, of course, that you can't alter the balance of things in favour of poorer people, because then the more politically-active middle-age middle-class individuals would get upset. ANY party will act in this manner once in power with a majority, whether they call themselves Socialists, Nationalists or Conservatives. Ideology is nothing but a PR exercise, these days.

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.

[daveofficer]

shit, i agree with dave in a political post! i have to go lie down now

actually there's one bit i'm not keen on which is your last paragraph as poverty is relative to those around you so comparing the poorest people in this country's standard of living with those in somalia is irrelevant. otherwise though, i concur. political parties based on dogmatic ideology aren't going to benefit anyone anymore. i think we've seen a shift towards more socially conscious free market economics benefitting the majority. we'll never go back to rampant thatcherism but we'll never see a true socialist party in power again either.

[Chris]

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.

While this is true to an extent, Labour still hasn't done much to really help the worst areas. Look at Glasgow East. 10 years of Labour and it's still a deprived shithole. That's probably what lost them the by-election more than anything else. Their party had been in power for a decade and their situation hadn't improved, so why should they continue to vote for the lie? They'd been told all their lives that Labour was their party and would help them but it didn't happen.

The minimum wage, new deal etc have helped many who needed it (I've been on new deal twice) but many of these schemes are still bypassing the truly deprived. There's always more that could be done.