New "One nation" Labour catchphrase

[scandal]

What interests me though, is the prospect of the Tories moving further to the right to counter UKIP, with Labour trying tot ake the centre ground again, and the LD's with new leadership moving leftwards!

I really can't see the Lib Dems being anything much post 2015 to be honest, unless there blushes are saved by another coalition agreement to form a Government, I think the Greens are really making in-roads to become the new 'party of protest' and the home of the left that doesn't trust Labour, with the Lib Dems becoming increasingly divided between the SDP and Orange Book factions, it'll be an interesting few years to see what happens, but I'm of the view that there will be defections if the predicted electoral meltdown happens.

You do make an interesting point about UKIP and the Conservatives, the 2014 European Election will certainly be very interesting and following the results of that I'd be interested to see if Nigel Farage follows through with his pledge not to stand UKIP candidates against Conservatives (splitting the vote of the right as the left has suffered since the creation of the SDP/Liberal Dermocrats).

The bigger picture to all of this is that most parties do chase the centre-ground because this is the home of the 'floating voters' the people who really decide the elections. The move, particularly in the UK to a post-industrial economy, has seen increasingly tribal arguments between left and right as irrelevant to modern life, there are plenty of politicians and academics who will point to the voters interest as who can best manage the country rather then who is more ideologically driven. The collapse of most of Labours core voters, particularly down to the shift in economy has seen the party re-position itself significantly, notably under Kinnock (but who would'nt of after the 1983 manifesto!), Blair's Clause IV moment really signalled the change in the Labour party to the centre and somewhere I doubt it will ever significantly shift from. The over-whelming support from the public in David Miliband, a Blairite to the right of his brother, somewhat vindicates the evidence that voters are looking for a 'safe pair of hands' rather then any wholesale change, much to the disappointment of the Trade Unions and 'Old Labour' factions.

 

[Butts]

I really can't see the Lib Dems being anything much post 2015 to be honest, unless there blushes are saved by another coalition agreement to form a Government, I think the Greens are really making in-roads to become the new 'party of protest' and the home of the left that doesn't trust Labour, with the Lib Dems becoming increasingly divided between the SDP and Orange Book factions, it'll be an interesting few years to see what happens, but I'm of the view that there will be defections if the predicted electoral meltdown happens.

You do make an interesting point about UKIP and the Conservatives, the 2014 European Election will certainly be very interesting and following the results of that I'd be interested to see if Nigel Farage follows through with his pledge not to stand UKIP candidates against Conservatives (splitting the vote of the right as the left has suffered since the creation of the SDP/Liberal Dermocrats).

The bigger picture to all of this is that most parties do chase the centre-ground because this is the home of the 'floating voters' the people who really decide the elections. The move, particularly in the UK to a post-industrial economy, has seen increasingly tribal arguments between left and right as irrelevant to modern life, there are plenty of politicians and academics who will point to the voters interest as who can best manage the country rather then who is more ideologically driven. The collapse of most of Labours core voters, particularly down to the shift in economy has seen the party re-position itself significantly, notably under Kinnock (but who would'nt of after the 1983 manifesto!), Blair's Clause IV moment really signalled the change in the Labour party to the centre and somewhere I doubt it will ever significantly shift from. The over-whelming support from the public in David Miliband, a Blairite to the right of his brother, somewhat vindicates the evidence that voters are looking for a 'safe pair of hands' rather then any wholesale change, much to the disappointment of the Trade Unions and 'Old Labour' factions.

I certainly hope the involvement of Greens does not extend any further than it has already - 1 MP - quite enough.

It's easy to have an environmental disposition when you have the benefit of a "Middle Class" income and upbringing not so simple at the "sharp end".

Green is a "lifestyle choice" to lot of Granola munching Guardian readers who have nothing better to do than try and stop everyone (except themselves after paying the appropriate carbon offset fee) from driving and flying.

"Nein Danke"

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The BNP are, as I'd like to call them, 'socialists with added racism'. Their manifesto proposes nationalisation of most British industries, import tariffs, and a drive towards autarky

On a general matter, with regard to the word "autarky" used in your quote above, meaning a closed economy, with the Taleban ideal of such in Afghanistan being a prime example, I am somewhat amazed to find that it is also the name of a dog food !!

Is someone trying to tell us something ?

 

[ainsworth74]

I certainly hope the involvement of Greens does not extend any further than it has already - 1 MP - quite enough.

It's easy to have an environmental disposition when you have the benefit of a "Middle Class" income and upbringing not so simple at the "sharp end".

The Green Part are annoying because they have some good ideas (legalisation of cannabis, allowing gay-marriage) but also some bad ones (extend congestion charging, introduce road pricing). During the last election one week I'd be nodding along at their latest policy idea the next week I'd be saying "Nein Danke!".

 

[Ivo]

I certainly hope the involvement of Greens does not extend any further than it has already - 1 MP - quite enough.

Is it coincidence that the Greens targeted Brighton for their first seat (specifically Brighton Pavilion), or was that a deliberate tactical ploy on their part? Either way, I have no objection to a pro-environment Party trying to force their way into our political system, but as Ainsworth says some of their ideas are daft to say the least. And as long as they are friendly with the likes of Plane Stupid and other such idiots, I don't think my vote will be likely to turn from blue to green any time soon. Just as it won't change to red or yellow or purple or any other colour.

By the way, in case anyone was wondering, I'm more anti-Labour than I am pro-Conservative. That doesn't mean I don't support the Conservatives though, because I do, and in time - i.e. when I actually have money () - I intend to join.

 

[Temple Meads]

Ed Miliband has actually gone up in my estimations since the Labour Party conference, he seemed more in control, and less of the spineless servant that he resembled when he became Labour leader.

I guess I could turn Ivo's phrase on it's head for my own views, I'm more anti-Conservative than pro-Labour.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Ed Miliband has actually gone up in my estimations since the Labour Party conference, he seemed more in control, and less of the spineless servant that he resembled when he became Labour leader.

Such was his perceived image when he first won the Labour leadership campaign, that anything since then would have been an improvement. It is interesting to see what his popularity rating will be, at large in the country in about a months time, when the conference season is over.

Did you see my earlier posting (and its final section in particular) that made mention of perceived images of Labour politicians in high office?

 

[Cable Car]

One Nation, yeh stroll on.
A strange term used back in the day when the Tories held working class seats in places like Glasgow and Liverpool.
As if any Tory MP cared about poor sods stuck in a council flat.
Then the work disappeared.
Along with the Tory MP.
Even the mugs who voted for them finally cottoned on.
It was meaningless then and even more so today.
Bit like this nonsense about "we're all in it together"
As if somebody stuck in a housing estate has something in common with a millionaire living in the home counties.

Dream On would be a better slogan.

 

[Butts]

One Nation, yeh stroll on.
A strange term used back in the day when the Tories held working class seats in places like Glasgow and Liverpool.
As if any Tory MP cared about poor sods stuck in a council flat.
Then the work disappeared.
Along with the Tory MP.
Even the mugs who voted for them finally cottoned on.
It was meaningless then and even more so today.
Bit like this nonsense about "we're all in it together"
As if somebody stuck in a housing estate has something in common with a millionaire living in the home counties.

Dream On would be a better slogan.

Indeed, as if someone living in Darmouth Park near Hampstead Heath in a £1Million plus house would have anything in common with those on a sink estate......oh hang on thats where Ed Milliband lives.

Guess who one of his near neighbours is a certain Neil Kinnock , another good socialist boy

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The Labour MP who represents the deeply socially-deprived constituency of Manchester Gorton is one of these so-called "Socialist Millionaires" who lives a life-style far removed from those whom he represents. He displayed a financial method of personal finance planning that would be envied by many so-called "Tory fat-cat MPs" he is said to decry and in the 2009 election expenses scandal that erupted, it was found that amongst some rather questionable luxury goods being claimed, there then surfaced a total claim of no less than £115,109 over the period 2001-2008 for his London flat expenses that the Parliamentary Fees Office had received...this figure was subsequently reduced to £15,329...almost a reduction of £100,000.

The title of the late 1950's film "I'm all right, Jack" tends to ring true even over fifty years on in time. (Giving my age away again here....)

 

[Greenback]

I think we have a problem these days of a political class, or political elite, whihc is so far removed from ordinary people that they really don't understand the issues that matter to ordinary people.

Regardless of which party they belong to, or ideas they purport to represent, the majority of MP's seem to be very well educated, professional people who have become career politicians at a relatively young age.

It's a sad fac tthat people like Clegg, Cameron and Milliband have far more incommon with each other than they do with a nurse, IT worker or receptionist.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

It's a sad fact that people like Clegg, Cameron and Milliband have far more in common with each other than they do with a nurse, IT worker or receptionist.

A reading of how a certain type of animal in "Animal Farm" became exempt from the lifestyle rules that they imposed upon the other animals on the farm and allowed them to live a luxurious lifestyle at the expense of all others, also can ring a bell here.

 

[Oswyntail]

I think we have a problem these days of a political class, or political elite, whihc is so far removed from ordinary people that they really don't understand the issues that matter to ordinary people.

Regardless of which party they belong to, or ideas they purport to represent, the majority of MP's seem to be very well educated, professional people who have become career politicians at a relatively young age.

It's a sad fac tthat people like Clegg, Cameron and Milliband have far more incommon with each other than they do with a nurse, IT worker or receptionist.

Personally, I would rather be represented by someone who is "well educated, professional" than not.
What matters is that they understand the issues that face me, and are flexible enough to instigate sensible action to address them. Of course, those issues will differ from those facing others in this constituency, and it is possible that the mean of issues facing this constituency will differ significantly from the mean of issues facing others. But I do not want the country to be run as if the only issues that matter are those facing a constituency in Surrey, or Liverpool. Nor do I feel that only Asian MPs can represent Asian constituents, or only women can represent women's views - such approaches are patronising to all concerned.
A major problem in the political set up at the moment is that MPs are denied this flexibility - an MP representing a marginal constituency is expected to toe the same party line as one with a rock-solid majority. With the party system as it is, this means it is not me or my fellow constituents that are being represented, but the handful who attend conferences. And, by definition, they take a one-sided view of things. My solution? Make all votes in parliament free votes, and abolish the Whips; allow MPs to vote to represent what they have discovered are their constituents "mean of issues". Effectively remove "Party" from within Parliament.

 

[SS4]

I think we have a problem these days of a political class, or political elite, whihc is so far removed from ordinary people that they really don't understand the issues that matter to ordinary people.

Regardless of which party they belong to, or ideas they purport to represent, the majority of MP's seem to be very well educated, professional people who have become career politicians at a relatively young age.

It's a sad fac tthat people like Clegg, Cameron and Milliband have far more incommon with each other than they do with a nurse, IT worker or receptionist.

They also won't have a clue what it's like to be unemployed or disabled or to live month to month. It's not surprising that voter turnout is generally falling when there is apathy. How do you get thousands of people who voted for the first time in the 2010 election to vote again? Especially the Lib Dem voters who thought they were voting to move the country to the left but ended up with the exact opposite - to them Clegg lied and is not far removed from being a traitor - he could have told the Tories where to get off but didn't. Note how the idea of being able to recall MPs was quietly dropped when it appeared Clegg himself was in danger of being recalled :roll:

Politicians don't represent people, they represent the party and when the parties are indistinguishable why does voting matter?

Speaking of animal farm the last line does a good job of summing up the relationship between senior politicians and the electorate
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

A major problem in the political set up at the moment is that MPs are denied this flexibility - an MP representing a marginal constituency is expected to toe the same party line as one with a rock-solid majority. With the party system as it is, this means it is not me or my fellow constituents that are being represented, but the handful who attend conferences. And, by definition, they take a one-sided view of things. My solution? Make all votes in parliament free votes, and abolish the Whips; allow MPs to vote to represent what they have discovered are their constituents "mean of issues". Effectively remove "Party" from within Parliament.

The free votes idea is one I'd like to see, especially since it would (hopefully) force voters to look at what the candidate is standing for instead of voting for/against parties. It's even worse in local elections when you basically have to guess (it was very difficult to find information when voting for a councillor)

 

[Ivo]

Personally, I would rather be represented by someone who is "well educated, professional" than not.
What matters is that they understand the issues that face me, and are flexible enough to instigate sensible action to address them. Of course, those issues will differ from those facing others in this constituency, and it is possible that the mean of issues facing this constituency will differ significantly from the mean of issues facing others. But I do not want the country to be run as if the only issues that matter are those facing a constituency in Surrey, or Liverpool. Nor do I feel that only Asian MPs can represent Asian constituents, or only women can represent women's views - such approaches are patronising to all concerned.
A major problem in the political set up at the moment is that MPs are denied this flexibility - an MP representing a marginal constituency is expected to toe the same party line as one with a rock-solid majority. With the party system as it is, this means it is not me or my fellow constituents that are being represented, but the handful who attend conferences. And, by definition, they take a one-sided view of things. My solution? Make all votes in parliament free votes, and abolish the Whips; allow MPs to vote to represent what they have discovered are their constituents "mean of issues". Effectively remove "Party" from within Parliament.

Perhaps we need a new electoral system then? But before the AV lot suddenly think I'm turning soft, I mean a rehash of the MP allocation. At present we have a system whereby one MP represents roughly 100K people, and those people vote to give power to one specific person.

What if we changed it to a system of roughly one person for every 150K people (plus or minus 10% subject to circumstances), with that person effectively being the bridge between the Government, which (s)he is a part of, and a new council system at a more localised level, which again (s)he is a part of, with the provision for councils to be operated as joint concerns where suitable? Where possible, large urban areas would also be kept separate from the rural surroundings, to minimise conflict of interest.

Example: Portsmouth's Urban Area would be worth three seats. There might be one for Fareham & Gosport, one for Portchester, Cosham, Havant and Hilsea, and one for the main part of the city itself. These three councils would work together to provide the best possible solution for the local area, but on a national level they are independent (as far as their electorate will "allow"). Meanwhile, the surrounding area - Hayling Island, Emsworth, Horndean, etc - would be covered by an independent MP, with the provision offered for smaller council systems which the MP wholly represents ((s)he must be prepared to make regular visits to each area (s)he represents).

Something like that. I would draw up borders but that would take ages!

The problem occurs in the situation of places like Inverness, which are urban in character and therefore have different requirements to areas around it - when there is no comparable urban area around for miles. Perhaps the second part of the suggestion above (from the word "meanwhile" onwards in the Portsmouth example) should be considered, with an "Inverness Urban District" and a "Highland Rural District" (yes, I know, Urban and Rural Districts are long gone).

Speaking of animal farm the last line does a good job of summing up the relationship between senior politicians and the electorate

How very true...

 

[Greenback]

Personally, I would rather be represented by someone who is "well educated, professional" than not.

Perhaps my choice of description wasn't the best! Although i should add that just because people have had a good education it doesn't mean that they have the encessary qualities to run a country. Likewise, people without thate ducation may have plenty of intelligence, common sense and ability, but not the academic window dressing!

What matters is that they understand the issues that face me, and are flexible enough to instigate sensible action to address them.

Well, that's the problem as I see it. The career politicians of the elite establishment are surely more used to grappling with academic problems than understanding the issues that more ordinary people are concerned with.

I don't think that people like the Chief Whip will ever be able to grasp the worry that many people have over how to pay their ever increasing bills when there is a pay freeze, or where they could find another job if they are made redundant.

Of course, those issues will differ from those facing others in this constituency, and it is possible that the mean of issues facing this constituency will differ significantly from the mean of issues facing others.

I agree, but a lot of the concerns of 'the person in the street' will be the same in many different places.

But I do not want the country to be run as if the only issues that matter are those facing a constituency in Surrey, or Liverpool. Nor do I feel that only Asian MPs can represent Asian constituents, or only women can represent women's views - such approaches are patronising to all concerned.

I agree completely!

A major problem in the political set up at the moment is that MPs are denied this flexibility - an MP representing a marginal constituency is expected to toe the same party line as one with a rock-solid majority. With the party system as it is, this means it is not me or my fellow constituents that are being represented, but the handful who attend conferences. And, by definition, they take a one-sided view of things. My solution? Make all votes in parliament free votes, and abolish the Whips; allow MPs to vote to represent what they have discovered are their constituents "mean of issues". Effectively remove "Party" from within Parliament.

There's not much I disagree with there either! The party system is riddled with problems!

 

[Cable Car]

I wonder how Alex Salmond feels when he hears this phrase ?

No doubt Alex wonders what planet the Labour leader is living on.

 

[Tracked]

if he'd have said One Nation Under a Groove then I'd have probably listened to him


One Nation in Debt, thanks to your lot, don't think the current lot will do anything to sort it out either

 

[SS4]

if he'd have said One Nation Under a Groove then I'd have probably listened to him


One Nation in Debt, thanks to your lot, don't think the current lot will do anything to sort it out either

Don't you know they're cutting welfare? Also not introducting a mansion tax. Coincidence? Maybe but if you're poor the Tory party despises you

 

[Oswyntail]

Don't you know they're cutting welfare?

To some, where it is not needed, increasing to others (that you don't hear about) and generally taking large numbers out of the tax system. Not everyone on benefits currently needs them - live with it.

Also not introducting a mansion tax.

Such a tax would have been one of the silliest in history. Because I live in a house for which the nominal market value is £400,000 does not mean I have any revenue to pay tax on it. To me its value is £0 other than as a home, and it will continue as such until I decide to sell it. At that stage I shall pay a tax on the value of its replacement. When I pop my clogs, my children will then pay tax on its full market value (which, incidentally, they will be expected to pay before they sell the house).

Coincidence? Maybe but if you're poor the Tory party despises you

That is romanticist poppycock! If you wish to believe the public image of the Tories, then why not the public image of the LibDems as sandal-wearing idealists, or Labour as economically incompetent would-be revolutionaries out to execute Toffs. Yes, there are some Tories who despise the poor - but I have met just as many Labour supporters who admit to doing likewise. And I know Tories who would like to punish bankers, even nationalise the railways. Most politicians actually want the same thing (and talking of despising people is not part of that) - in this case to raise people out of poverty. Labour believes in providing handouts, the Tories in (believe it or not) providing the economic institutions to enable and encourage people to help themselves. (If you give a man a fish, and all that). This is not despising the poor, but neither is it patronising them

 

[Butts]

Don't you know they're cutting welfare? Also not introducting a mansion tax. Coincidence? Maybe but if you're poor the Tory party despises you

What utter nonsense - it's not just the Tories but also Labour and the Liberal Democrats as well

Rather than introducing a "Mansion Tax" it would make more sense to revalue the Council Tax Bands in England and Scotland (Cymru has already done it). As these are based on 1991 Values the introduction of a few more bands in the higher echelons would not go amiss.

Freezing Council Tax every year is a bit of a red herring as well, the money only has to be raised elsewhere.

The truth of the matter is the only way to raise serious revenue is through those who are not rich or poor as they are far more numerous and produce a much higher yield. The rest is just smoke and mirrors.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Freezing Council Tax every year is a bit of a red herring as well, the money only has to be raised elsewhere.

As a vote attractor, it is a "herring" to attract those on wages that are frozen or on limited incomes who find that any expected increased annual burden on incomes that is cancelled is something to be welcomed. The thought that the lack of monies in finance that will affect services tends to take second place in their thinking when compared to the relief of their own finances despite the fact that Council Tax is something levied on the populace as a whole. Human nature will always take more account of the immediate family unit over those external to this in cases where "every penny counts" in home budgets.

I wonder if matters continue over the next ten years as at present will then will we see a possible re-evaluation of the thought that energy costs to pay for the required "renewable energy" future are just a burden that everyone will have to devote a far greater proportion of their available home budget to, as it is obvious that certain very large economies in other parts of the globe will do absolutely nothing to reduce their own use of fossil fuels and negate any climatic changes gained by smaller countries such as Britain.

 

[Butts]

As a vote attractor, it is a "herring" to attract those on wages that are frozen or on limited incomes who find that any expected increased annual burden on incomes that is cancelled is something to be welcomed. The thought that the lack of monies in finance that will affect services tends to take second place in their thinking when compared to the relief of their own finances despite the fact that Council Tax is something levied on the populace as a whole. Human nature will always take more account of the immediate family unit over those external to this in cases where "every penny counts" in home budgets.

I wonder if matters continue over the next ten years as at present will then will we see a possible re-evaluation of the thought that energy costs to pay for the required "renewable energy" future are just a burden that everyone will have to devote a far greater proportion of their available home budget to, as it is obvious that certain very large economies in other parts of the globe will do absolutely nothing to reduce their own use of fossil fuels and negate any climatic changes gained by smaller countries such as Britain.

As only about 20% of Council Tax comes from the populace (the rest from Central Government and Business) it may be cheaper to fund it all centrally rather than maintain the illusion it pays for all local services.

The problem with renewable energy is that it cannot generate enough power to cope with a sudden surge in demand from consumers or Industry. One day perhaps, but for the forseeable future it is merely a supplemental source of power.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The problem with renewable energy is that it cannot generate enough power to cope with a sudden surge in demand from consumers or Industry. One day perhaps, but for the foreseeable future it is merely a supplemental source of power.

I was quite worried when someone came on television to say the future chances of power cuts as a 1 in X chance now would be far higher in future years with the uncertainty of power generation being lost when some of the current power stations came to the end of their working life.