?

Log in

No account? Create an account
The End Of The Labour Party? - Eroticdreambattle — LiveJournal [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Tony Grist

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

The End Of The Labour Party? [May. 17th, 2015|11:41 am]
Tony Grist
I know what the Tories are for. They exist to serve the powers that be (which these days means the bankers and the corporations) and keep the little people in their place. But Labour?

The Labour party was created as the political arm of an industrial working class that no longer exists. Tony Blair and his gang "modernised" it- and made it indistinguishable in thought, word and deed from the Conservative Party. They kept it going on spin and charisma and by the end of their three terms had stripped it of all credibility as a party of the left. Ed Miliband tinkered and fiddled-but to little effect- and now it's nothing but a heap of rusting, clapped out machinery- and there has to be a real question- after the battering it took in this last election- whether it can be made to go again. Because- except as a vehicle for political ambitions- what on earth is the point of it?
linkReply

Comments:
[User Picture]From: glitzfrau
2015-05-17 10:50 am (UTC)
For me, the point is that it's the only party that fights for social justice. It aims to unite all classes to make life better for the poor and poorest, and to fight discrimination. And that's why I'm a proud member.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: poliphilo
2015-05-17 12:13 pm (UTC)
But does it really?

Miliband and Balls were promising to continue with austerity and keep Trident...oh, and control immigration.
They even blazoned that last promise on a mug.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: ingenious76
2015-05-17 12:52 pm (UTC)
Yes. Austerity would have stayed even if they had got in. In fact, a worse scenario would have been austerity south of the border and more cash going north.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: poliphilo
2015-05-17 02:26 pm (UTC)
I'm not economist but I know a lot of reputable economists think austerity was quite the worst way of tackling the recession- and has in fact slowed down recovery.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: glitzfrau
2015-05-17 01:44 pm (UTC)
I don't agree with all their policies, but Labour is a coalition. It has to appeal to workers on the Trident base and people whose wages have been undercut by immigrants as well as to champagne socialists like me.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: poliphilo
2015-05-17 02:33 pm (UTC)
What I'm not getting from Labour is any kind of vision of the just society. They've conceded too much to the Tories- and they fought the recent election with a set of Tory policies and Tory slogans (hard-working families, indeed!)

I'd have preferred a Miliband government to a Cameron government but I wouldn't have put much faith in it.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: glitzfrau
2015-05-17 06:49 pm (UTC)
Well yes, of course: the lack of a clear vision and the lack of trustworthiness was a huge part of why we lost. Sigh. I trusted Ed Miliband's vision.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: michaleen
2015-05-19 06:30 pm (UTC)
Our feckless Democrats have the same problem: lack of vision. Too many Dems get reelected by simply being not quite so evil as their eye-rolling-insane opponent. Sadly, that's not nearly enough to keep the crazy at bay. They need to articulate a meaningful vision for the future, something people actually want, something that will get them to the polls. So far, most Democrats simply won't. Neo-liberalism is the conventional wisdom of the day and few even pretend to challenge it.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: matrixmann
2015-05-17 12:01 pm (UTC)
Reminds you of the way the SPD has gone here...
Well, there once was a reason why in the early times the communists seperated from the social democrats. They understood you can't make pro-small-man politics with the system. The social democrats thought you could (and that it's better because who wants to live in upheaval).
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: poliphilo
2015-05-17 12:16 pm (UTC)
As someone said, you can't make an omlette without breaking eggs- and you can't change society without upheaval.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: matrixmann
2015-05-17 02:55 pm (UTC)
Social democrats thought their way lies in the direction of "reforms", slow change. Still this remains so until today. Only that they have sold their souls to the same deity that the conservatives worship. And so is any left movement beside the communists. Too soft with the trader.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: poliphilo
2015-05-17 04:43 pm (UTC)
That's right. If you urge reform you're as good as admitting you accept the basic validity of the system you're dealing with.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: cmcmck
2015-05-18 07:43 am (UTC)
Just sigh :o(

The betrayal of my socialist principles by the privileged political classes over the last couple of decades has been a bitter pill to swallow.

(Reply) (Thread)