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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
As someone said, you can't make an omlette without breaking eggs- and you can't change society without upheaval.
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.
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.
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.