The future of the Labour Party

[AtW]

For once you're right. It'll be monkey boy Milliband.

Alan Milburn I reckon...

[Tarquin Farquhar]

Polity: that's rule by the middle classes IIRC. After the numerous assaults on the middle classes over things like pensions, they'd be strung up PDQ, no doubt.

Democracy is direct rule by the votes of all, polity is where everybody votes for the rulers, who then vote. Representative democracy IOW. Of course Aristotle didn't imagine giving everybody the vote so it would have been the middle classes.

[Waldorf]

In the early 1900's Labour gradually replaced the Liberals as the 2nd party, perhaps the Liberals will come back and gradually replace Labour?

[xoggoth]

Agree with HAB although I think he is being a bit moderate. All socialists should be exterminated.

[AtW]

perhaps the Liberals will come back and gradually replace Labour?

I hope it's not going to take 100 years!!!

[Peoplesoft bloke]

In the early 1900's Labour gradually replaced the Liberals as the 2nd party, perhaps the Liberals will come back and gradually replace Labour?

That would be good - although not for the majority on here who seem to favour a one-party (Tory) state, of course. Not least because the Liberals are substantially to the left of Labour on most issues these days.

[Tarquin Farquhar]

That would be good - although not for the majority on here who seem to favour a one-party (Tory) state, of course. Not least because the Liberals are substantially to the left of Labour on most issues these days.

Might be hard, they don't occupy the same ground as they used to. Tories were the party of the landed gentry and old money. Liberals were the party of business. Labour were the party of the workers and the poor.

Labour didn't exactly replace the Liberals: Labour's fortunes rose because their constituency started being able to vote.

Meanwhile the Tories replaced the Liberals as the party of business (on the surface anyway, I have doubts about deep down). The Liberals' fortunes declined because their natural ground was stolen.

Now that (New) Labour has decided to take the Liberals' old ground, not to mention the modern Conservatives' ground, naturally the Liberals can occupy some of the ground that (old) Labour still thinks belongs to it but which actually it has abandoned. Like the less fortunate.

I don't favour a one-party state regardless of which party, not even one I could dream up. But every one now seems to be trying to squat in the middle ground in order to be in with a shout, then appeal to some non-centre voters in order to swing it. The strategy of appealing to off-centre voters who are not your traditional consituency, while at the same time not alienating your traditional constituency, will win out over the "safe" strategy of apealing to your traditional constituency. But go too far, and you will alienate your traditional constituency and not win.

Hence the contortions of politicians trying to appeal to all, including those who demand principles.

As for actually having principles, ooh, that's a bit risky.

[RichardCranium]

But every one now seems to be trying to squat in the middle ground in order to be in with a shout, then appeal to some non-centre voters in order to swing it.

Spot on.

Big party politics is a business that exists to serve the career politicians. It has nothing to do with us or with democracy. It is a scam, a sham, a mockery of democracy.

The big two both know that at least 2/3rds of their existing MPs will be re-elected and there's a few dozen who may or may not. If either of those 2 parties wins, it makes little difference to them except to the dozen or so cabinet members who get paid that bit more than the shadow cabinet members.

They're fleecing us. 'Principles' and 'representation' have no place in big party politics.

[Sysman]

Harman won't be the leader.

Harperson.

[ratewhore]

<snip>

Bout time you updated your twatter page...