Is there any alternative to the jaundiced Tory attitudes?

First topic message reminder :

Depressing, isn't it? All the miserable gits can come up with is oppression of the poor and fear of the disadvantaged. Never mind, here's something that can make us all feel better about the human race - even if it does have to include Cameron and Company .........

http://www.buzzfeed.com/expresident/pictures-that-will-restore-your-faith-in-humanity

boatlady wrote:Quite a close thing in Wirral - I expect it was Red convinced those 400 or so voters that swung it

I hope what you have said is true boatlady, but just knowing my little bit helped Margaret Greenwood win her seart I will be a happy bunny, I intend to watch her get sworn into the HOC at one point this week.

Before I left each of my travels I did tell them I would be watching the results show on the 7th May would also be watching them get sworn in to HOC.

Look at the alternative Queen’s speech and wonder what might have been

From an article by Polly Toynbee:-

For months, Lord Falconer toiled away at drafting bills for Labour’s first 100 days in power – ready for tomorrow’s Queen’s speech. First, a housing bill would have paved the way for 200,000 new homes a year, with planning reform and powers to stop developers sitting on unused land-banks. Plans to regulate the private rented sector included three-year leases, rents only rising with inflation. The bedroom tax would have been abolished within a week by statutory instrument. A bill would have reformed the energy market, temporarily preventing price rises while the six companies were broken up.

A labour market reform bill would have ended zero-hours contracts and abolished prohibitive fees for employment tribunals. House of Lords reform would have been prepared, along with votes at 16. We would have been spared the EU referendum. The first budget would have raised the top tax rate back to 50p, brought in a mansion tax and abolished non-dom status for those long resident, while raising the minimum wage.

A bill would have repealed the Health and Social Care Act, that puts every service up for private tender. New free schools would have been stopped. On railways, a bill would have created a public sector competitor free to bid for all franchises – and the badger cull would have ended. A bill would have restored something like the rules before Thatcher abolished limits on the press and broadcasting one owner could control, when she granted Murdoch unprecedented market dominance. In truth, many of these were popular policies, well tested with the public.

For the whole article:-
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/26/queens-speech-miliband

Ivan

Unfortunately personality, and not policies, count for more with many voters and they took a dislike to Ed. Sad and pathetic, but true.

I predict that when Labour do there next speech after winning the election, it will be the kings speech.

And that unpalatable position is democracy in action. Doesn't seem quite right, put like that - but that is ,apparently, what Britain thinks it wants...

And that unpalatable position is democracy in action.

That’s if you accept a very narrow definition of democracy. 63.1% of those who voted didn’t select the Tories. Only 24.4% of those who could have voted chose the Tories, yet they ended up with 50.9% of the seats in Parliament and still intend to skew the balance further in their favour. And whatever we may think of the respective parties, there is something very wrong with a system which gives the SNP 56 seats for 1.45 million votes, but awards UKIP 1 seat for 3.88 million votes. The so-called ‘Westminster bubble’ will always appear out of touch if such anomalies are allowed to continue.

Shouldn’t a democracy require a fair contest? With every newspaper except ‘The Guardian’ and ‘The Daily Mirror’ supporting the Tories (even the inappropriately named’ Independent’), the BBC largely focusing on the Tory and tabloid press agenda (making far too much of the Labour/SNP coalition ‘threat’), and with the Tories being heavily bankrolled by oligarchs and hedge funds, was the electorate given a balanced opportunity to see the alternatives? Especially when one of the principal applicants for the job was too cowardly to turn up for a face-to-face interview?

Call it sour grapes - or call me a bad loser if you like - but fighting a UK general election feels like playing a football match on a hillside, where one team is at the top, the other is at the bottom, and they don’t change ends halfway through.

I don't think I would argue with any of that.

Democracy. Examine the alternatives.

(Prayer didn't work.)

Extremely well put Ivan, the % figures for democracy just do not work somehow do they?

Ivan wrote:Call it sour grapes - or call me a bad loser if you like - but fighting a UK general election feels like playing a football match on a hillside, where one team is at the top, the other is at the bottom, and they don’t change ends halfway through.

It is certainly not Sour Grapes Ivan, but we just have to bide out time the 8th July to be exact that is when Osborne brings forth his budget of cuts then the people that voted Tory will find out EXACTLY what they voted for screams will be heard for miles

(written by David Schneider)
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CF9wRt7WgAA8G0p.png

When will the Trade Unions find a spine? When it's too late?

They capitulated at the start of the last Parliamnent just to get into the Lords and now where are they? Useless fools like Serwotka talking the talk, but doing nothing when kids are forced into penury by members of his own union!

GW if you take a good hard look at the Unions today you will see this will be the "Summer of Discontent" Before the G.E the teachers said if they did get a cut in there budget they would go on strike in the Autumn then the RMT are taking strike action in June and that is just the start because we all know its OK for MPs to get a pay rise of 11% but the under paid public services staff are only offered 1% this willl not end in a nice way.

Any strike action from teachers will be relatively minor and ineffective -it always is. Parents certainly do not sympathise with any group which causes them inconvenience - eg by having to make alternative and unexpected childcare arrangements in a busy life.

All public sector strikes will do is to allow the Tories to press Labour to disown them -and if and when they do, Labour will fall out with the union movement. There has to be a better way found of putting pressure on Cameron.

It is a paradox, but I suspect that many people who have sympathies with their own trade union or staff association do not vote Labour because they don't find the sharper end of trade unionism especially attractive. It also seems true that people who are not very well off believe that there are more of them around - and readying for battle - than actually is the case.

The Labour Party may need to find how to key into a new realism which speaks to the real dynamic in Britain - and failure to do so will leave the Tories - by default if nothing else-to go happily on their jaundiced way. Turning Left - particularly hard Left - may see some traditional supporters return to the Labour fold - but not enough to secure any sort of victories in 21st Century Britain...

I can remember when "Union bashing" was the province of the only female Prime Minister we've ever had.

What goes around, comes around.

Very good OW.

Redflag wrote:GW if you take a good hard look at the Unions today you will see this will be the "Summer of Discontent" Before the G.E the teachers said if they did get a cut in there budget they would go on strike in the Autumn then the RMT are taking strike action in June and that is just the start because we all know its OK for MPs to get a pay rise of 11% but the under paid public services staff are only offered 1% this willl not end in a nice way.

You mean like the last 5 years in which the unions have promised they won't tolerate any more and then capitulate?

How is this any different? The teachers will strike for a day or two; the media will successfully - because these people learn nothing just like the Labour party they supported - brand them as lazy and the people will end up agreeing and nothing will change.

Striking needs to be effective and it won't be if they strike for one day. That's a total waste of everyone's time. If these people are serious then it has to be all out until the sisutation changes - and it will if teh teachers cause the education system to grind to a halt, but unfortunately the TUC hasn't the stomach or the balls for this.

oftenwrong wrote:I can remember when "Union bashing" was the province of the only female Prime Minister we've ever had.

What goes around, comes around.

So what would you like people to say to you? Clearly you would rather hear what you want to hear rather than the truth, which is the unions bottled it. I wish it was different and I would love to see that cvhange, but until it does I'm not going to be placing any bets.

When was the last time a major strike achieved its aim?.......

The Labour Party may need to find how to key into a new realism which speaks to the real dynamic in Britain

Maybe true
How would you define the 'real dynamic' ?
I've been trying myself to come up with some sort of working definition, without success - would welcome your input

Part of the real dynamic  -as I see it - is that 'ordinary people' don't fall into the handy relatively static categories they once did.

Modern life  in Britain sees those who are suspicious of the rich and powerful, but who also quite like the 'safety' that they perceive the Tories traditionally bring. Similarly, many are worried about immigration and immigrants and those who seem to perpetually to live on benefits, despite being inclined to support the Labour Party. These are just two simple examples of changes to traditional attitudes , whereby some supposedly right-wing views are adopted by those who are, by instinct basically left-wing in both their upbringing and thinking.

A working definition may be elusive, given the multiple complexities  of the modern era, but it revolves around the fact that political parties need to recognise the inherent contradiction in individuals and the fact that - as one manifestation -there are now many working class folk who , unlike in past generations, have a good deal to conserve and are, consequently, not attracted to traditional socialist notions and rhetoric.

I have always tended to think about a political spectrum where all MPs can be placed individually in order from extreme right to extreme left on a continuum - ranging from darkest blue to deepest red. Neither extreme appeals to the majority of Britain , in my estimation, and it is the centre ground, neither truly blue nor red, which is fertile for persuading people to vote for policies consistent with that territory.

Where people believe that their reasonable concerns are not being recognised or heeded, too many may gravitate to one extreme or the other  - this may explain, in part, the attraction of UKIP, for instance. Hence , those who tend to be of a right-wing persuasion can swing even further right if their 'needs' are not satisfied, while the reverse is true for left thinkers. The trick may be to keep the reasonable common sense voters secure and reassured in the middle ground of politics where many feel happiest - or are, at least, prepared to reside despite what might be some reservations on certain issues. This implies that the most effective policy strategies might be to adopt a mixture of the traditional Tory and Labour beliefs, since in reality those are the multi-coloured preferences of many.

But voters' views change over time - that is, of course, the essence of a 'dynamic' - and, to maintain power, any political grouping either needs to adapt to reflect those changed views, or risk what follows if they simply stick stubbornly to what may have become their embedded and much-loved principles.

“In opposition, you move to the centre. In government, you move the centre.” (George Osborne)

There is no easily-defined centre ground in politics, but it’s certainly changed since the 1951-1979 era, when British politics was dominated by something of a consensus known as ‘Butskellism’. That took its name from the Tory politician R.A.Butler and the Labour leader Hugh Gaitskell. During that time, it was accepted that Britain would have a mixed economy, with strong public and private sectors and a greater use of direct taxes (such as income tax) and less of indirect taxes (such as purchase tax and then VAT). It wasn’t considered ‘extreme’ in those days to believe in the state ownership of gas, electricity, railways and water, or to have the basic rate of income tax at 30% and VAT at 8% (now both are at 20%). And it wasn’t considered extreme to expect the welfare state to provide help if you became sick or unemployed and not to label you as a scrounger.

1979 and the arrival of Thatcher ended that consensus, and in accordance with Osborne’s dictum, she moved the centre ground rightwards. When Blair came to power in 1997, he left it where it was. Now we have at least another Tory decade when the ‘centre’ will no doubt move further towards where it was in Victorian times. In the 1850s, it was considered extreme (presumably left-wing) for public health boards to be set up to deal with sewage and drainage, and ‘The Times’ declared “it would rather take its chance of cholera than be bullied into health”. My point is that wherever the ‘centre ground’ is perceived to be today doesn’t make it the right place on which a supposedly progressive party should camp.

Incidentally, Hugh Gaitskell was the most right-wing leader of the Labour Party before Tony Blair. And how did he fare? He led Labour at the 1959 general election, when the Tories increased their majority from 60 to 100. Maybe being too much like the Tories, as Gaitskell probably was, invited voters to choose the real thing rather than a pale imitation?

Phil, thanks for taking the time to reply - there's not a lot to argue with in what you said, but you do comment I believe in terms of what appears to be the case rather than in terms of the actual facts. For example:-
many are worried about immigration and immigrants and those who seem to perpetually to live on benefits, despite being inclined to support the Labour Party.

Those worries are almost in their entirety false constructs put in place by an unscrupulous right-wing government supported by an unscrupulous right-wing press, and anyone who looks at hard facts about these two areas of concern will quickly discover that the truth of the matter is at least a good deal more nuanced than Mr Cameron and Mr Murdoch would have us believe, and often the reverse of what is presented as 'fact' in the media.
During the recent election campaign, there were attempts by the Labour party to engage with these issues, by promising to control immigration, to control foreigners' access to benefits and health care, by being 'tough' on welfare, and by continuing austerity policies. The promises were reasonable in the main, and once examined in detail did promise a fairer way to deal with the fears you have outlined above - however, as we all know, the devil's in the detail, and again and again the detail of what the party were promising was lost in media spin and in the self-serving attitudes of the smaller parties.

" My point is that wherever the ‘centre ground’ is perceived to be today doesn’t make it the right place on which a supposedly progressive party should camp."

And that progressive party are entitled not to do so. However, the penalty may be lengthy opposition. The harsh reality is that it may be a case of choosing between immutable principles, or power.

Like it or not, the public is a very different one from the time of Butler and Gaitskell - individuals' views are potentially far better-informed and they have sharper focus on what they expect and believe in -and what they are prepared to tolerate. People are now multi-layered ; the different strata that make up individuals, even within the same broad social groupings, are very different in their 'depth' or importance to each person - for example some Labour supporters are very religious and others not . Likewise some Tories are relaxed about public services while others are totally opposed to anything but a competitive market for everything. The varying differences in that 'depth' may extend to such diverse aspects as expectations about personal and others' wellbeing, or wealth/standard of living, or the appropriate level of involvement of a benevolent State in their lives, or whether the Monarchy is a institution to be respected.

 There is no blueprint for who can be expected to vote for a particular party anymore. It is a question of those seeking votes trying to develop policies which are the best fit for their target audience - which is a complex, unforgiving and multi-tiered beast, to the extent that the best that can be hoped for is to 'hit' sufficient of its 'aspirations' to convince it to vote in the desired way.

And boatlady is right , of course. None of this is based on facts - but , then , neither are so many of the judgements of those who turn up in the polling booths, where so many decisions are borne of gut instincts and what they have been persuaded to swallow by those asking for their support. The overall strategy of any party has to take account of all this in how they mould policy and approaches to persuasion. A quick look at some of the classic theories of motivation might be worth a moment's investment - at least one of which tells us that a satisfied need is not a motivator for particular desired actions and that it is a waste of time to concentrate upon it.

But to end where I started : if a party is not willing to consider changing or adapting its approaches to meet the demands of an electorate, then its worthy and principled stand could well cost it influence and power for a lengthy period -maybe for ever. The middle ground does change - just as the accepted morality of a society does ( and look at the differences in the mores of the 1950s in that respect) and there is a choice for politicians between embracing that, or preferring to ignore the different dynamic which that change has produced over time.

astradt1 wrote:When was the last time a major strike achieved its aim?.......

when was the last time there was a general strike?

The will isn't there. The unions are lions led by donkeys, all of their leaders are toothless and just want to be part of the westminster elite. They wont' do anything. They are as toothless as the People's Assembly; the Owen Jones talking shop.

The power is with the people, but the people are afraid to use it. Get out on the streets, stop the machinery. Strike and stay out. That will stop the system. If the teachers went on strike for weeks not a day here and there things would soon change, but that won't happen because they are, understandably, afraid. The media has won. This country is dominated by a a bullying hypocritical tax dodging money grubbing gutter press.

="Phil Hornby
 There is no blueprint for who can be expected to vote for a particular party anymore.

I'm not sure that is a new phenomenon.  The British voter avoids extremes, at either end of the political spectrum.
The lesson of the recent election is that FPTP is not unpopular.  People prefer a party to be strong enough to carry out its manifesto promises.  Things are back to normal.

The 2010 aberration was a protest vote on a national scale; "A plague on all your houses!"

(For similar reasons, our resident anarchist on this forum is doomed to be forever disappointed.)

ghost whistler wrote:when was the last time there was a general strike?

The will isn't there. The unions are lions led by donkeys, all of their leaders are toothless and just want to be part of the westminster elite. They wont' do anything. They are as toothless as the People's Assembly; the Owen Jones talking shop.

For once I agee with you GW, I did think that during the last 5 years the TUC would have called a gneral strike because that is the only way this Tory gov't will sit up and take notice of what the working people of the UK,     But what I want to know is when will the people of GB grow a back bone and stand up to the Tories and the right wing media, or will they continue to do there normal moan moan moan.

I wonder if the Tories would actually like a general strike. Aside of the impact on growth - depending on the length of the stoppage - they would paint the Labour Party  and other opponents -as its organisers and backers, thereby planting the idea on the mind of Joe Public that we were back to the bad old militant days of the 70s.

 For years thereafter in the Daily Mail etc. we would be hearing about the 'betrayal of Britain' by Labour - it may even replace the 'Labour bankrupted Britain' cri-de-coeur.

Most of the public would not approve of a strike - we are back to what I suggest is the mistaken belief that there are far more people who feel 'downtrodden and oppressed' than is actually the case. How many folk are willing to endure such action and disruption for the sake of the disadvantaged? Again, in the current climate, not as many as would be comforting for the people at the barricades.

It may be that the more effective strategy is a targeted and incessant opposition from Labour which readily resonates with a large mass of the public - eg alighting upon the most sensitive and vulnerable of targets provided by the Tory war on the dispossessed - and there will be all too many of those. This is , however, where I felt the Labour Party failed the victims during 2010 - 2015 - they rattled on at issues which did not find favour with the voters, and paid the price.

Avoid the crude weapon of strikes - select instead a craftier and insidious approach in conjunction and co-operation with other opposition parties . After all, it would be what the Tories would do to undermine its opponents...

None of that would make the Tories sit up and take notice PH, as long as they have a marjority in HOC the cuts to the oppressed & even with the help of other parties in the HOC. Knowing the Tory party and there underhand vile ways they would just carry on regardless, but a general strike would effect there backers & donors who would not like all the profit they would lose during a strike (if it was for more than a day)

Who would take part in a 'General Strike'?......Would we see supermarket workers walking out?, would we see bank workers joining them? would most of Britain's remaining manufacturing industry workers man the 'barricades? Of course we wouldn't it would just be public sector workers whose jobs would then be farmed out to the Private Sector en mass......
The mere idea of a General Strike is a throw back from 1930-40's......
If a work to contract was suggested it would possibly get more support......Staff not covering for the short falls which occur due to cuts in funding  would show the public that public services are being only being maintained by staff who do not want to see those they serve suffer due to dogmatic government policies........

Good idea astradt doing no more hours that there contract says it would need to take in the doctors and nurses and other staff in our NHS, because I have heard from nurses that most times they cannot leave there patients at the end of there shift but they will have too if they want there NHS to work and show the "BARE FACED LIES" that this Tory gov't is telling & have been since May 2010.

The sort of simple message with potential impact which just did not get across in 2010 to 2015.

Along with similar illustrative facts -of which there were no doubt plenty - it might just have helped...

An explanation for Cameron's victory may perhaps be found in 'The Copenhagen Syndrome' theory:

Post-modern bourgeois liberals, to borrow a description of the late American scholar Richard Rorty, do not like to have their space violated by poverty. Let's call this aspect of affluence, this desire for a tranquil vista, "Copenhagen syndrome", since the Danes are among the greatest practitioners of it. They give away one of the largest percentages of their gross national income in foreign aid and their government has the most restrictive immigration policies in the European Union. Danes are very generous to the poor and needy, the "other", but they do not want to look at them.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/the_copenhagen_syndrome

Abracadabra! Britain’s political elite has fooled us all again

From an article by Aditya Chakrabortty:-

Since the crash, British politics has been one epic act of misdirection. Lay off those bankers who shoved the country into penury! Just focus on stripping disabled people of their benefits. Never mind the millionaire bosses squeezing your pay! Spit instead at the minimum-wage migrant cleaners apparently making us poorer.

Unite’s Len McCluskey came under a barrage of criticism for suggesting that Labour live up to its name and support “ordinary working people”. Evil paymaster! Meanwhile, JCB called on Cameron to prepare to take Britain out of the EU – and this was just a company having its say. McCluskey is the elected head of a union seeking to influence the party part-funded by his members. Moreover, Unite’s donations to the opposition are a matter of easily checkable record.

Not so the money poured into Tory coffers by JCB, either as a business or from its owners, the Bamford family. To learn that, we must rely upon forensic researchers such as Stuart Wilks-Heeg at Liverpool University. He calculated that, between 2001-14, the Bamfords and JCB had together given the Tories at least £6.7m. One arm of JCB also donated £600k last year to Tory campaigns in key marginals.

All the misdirection has been about taking our minds off the fact that Britain is a soft touch for businesses that want taxpayers to pay their way, and politicians who count on the middle classes to feel richer, not through their wage packets, but by their house prices and their no-frills flights. What a trick has been pulled by our political and business elite: never have so many people had their pockets picked at the same time.

For the whole article:-
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/18/britain-political-elite-fooled-us-again

Reminder:  The Hidden Persuaders,  by Vance Packard



30/12/2007 · Vance Packard’s 1957 book showed how sinister advertising techniques were being imported into politics.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/30/books/review/Greif-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Blast from the past, there - read that for my 'A' Level general studies course

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CGwA-p5XEAAi6Qk.jpg

And that's before expenses.....

A bit low for myself to live on Ivan, people know that us scroungers on benefits are more use to living on 120.000 pounds a month just to survive, are we not?