If the Labour Party didn't exist, would anyone today invent it?

MyOnlyPost

antrobus wrote: »

So you are telling us that;

"that both major parties members are by enlarge extremists and neither party is really fit for purpose (governing the masses). Our pure political system is one of the best in the world (but could be improved), but is spoiled by political parties and power hungry individuals. "

but that you don't want to do anything about it?

I am a pragmatist. I am under no illusion that the system will change just because I don't agree with it. I also don't have the money or public stature to effect change so what exactly do you suggest I or any other Joe Public could do?

antrobus wrote: »

But this is a thread about the Labour Party. What have the negative aspects of the Conservatives, UKIP, Lib Dems, Greens, Monster Loony, SPGB, got to do with it?

Your right I should just accept the premise of the OP, even if some of the comments made afterwards to justify it apply equally to the Conservatives too. You can't say because party A did x,y,z they are irrelevant even though party B did x,y,z too but let's just ignore that.

I refer you back to my very first post. If Labour had never existed you cannot then state that nobody would create the Labour party today because they have done x,y,z in the past. The OP's premise that the Labour party wouldn't be created because of what the Labour Party has done is an oxymoron

antrobus wrote: »

For somebody who claims neither party is "really fit for purpose" you see awfully keen to defend the Labour Party, and even going so far as to defend Labour against accusations that have not even been raised in this thread.

I am not defending the Labour Party at all. If the OP says

westernpromise wrote: »

But I really struggle to think of anything respectable that we need a Labour Party for. You can have centre left parties, and most countries do, but they don't generally consort with the IRA, or lie to start to wars, or reintroduce filthy Dickensian workhouses, or turn a blind eye to !!!!!philia by their client groups, for example. So if not those things, what do we need Labour for? What's its job in a post-union, post-Communist, post-identity politics century, that can't be done by the Lib Dems?

And I reply

MyOnlyPost wrote: »

In reality it is individuals who are responsible for their actions and if you think of some of the Conservative politicians of the past 50 years then their party also has a shameful hiistory including an ex PM who is currently being investigated for child indecency (I make no statement as to whether I think the investigation is justified, merely point out it is happening). There is also the Conservative PM who sank a warship leaving a conflict zone killing 323 people which could be seen by some to be a war crime and a PM who had an extra marital affair whilst representing the family values party. It seems dubious morailty is not restricted to either major political party.

This in no way defends Labours actions, merely highlights that to single out Labour is hypocritical.

If the OP truly thinks Labour has no validity then demonstrate this with arguments that can't also be levelled at the Conservatives, I'm sure there are plenty of them. Instead we have had a long list of accusations aimed at Labour which I have highlighted could be levelled at both parties so if either party is made irrelevant by those accusations by extension both are.

I'm sorry if you don't think that makes sense.

MyOnlyPost

westernpromise wrote: »

Changing every 10 minutes to ensure you always get the result you like is not an improvement.

Where have I advocated constantly changing the system? Where have I indicated what result I might like? It's your thread, why not make a cogent argument to support your premise rather than a series of rants aimed at a political party you dislike? There are plenty of reasons why the Labour party is no longer relevant to the majority of voters but listing it's historical flaws isn't one of them.

antrobus

MyOnlyPost wrote: »

..I'm sorry if you don't think that makes sense.

Of course you don't make sense. It is perfectly clear that your a former Labour voter, supporter, member, whatever, who is disillusioned by the car-crash of New Labour, disappointed by post New Labour's failures, and has no idea of what to do any more.

I'm no fooled by your mock tone of moral superiortity, and your disingenuous pleas for 'balance'.

Nobody but a diehard leftist could post this kind of nonsense;

MyOnlyPost wrote: »

...To imply Blair is a war Criminal whilst forgetting Thatchers actions in the Falklands war....

I can only draw your attention to what Gerald Kaufman (may he rest in peace) had to say on the subject;

Against timorous nerve-trembling on both sides of the House and attempted international interference, she was utterly determined that the people of the Falkland Islands, who wanted to be British and who still want to be British today, should not be the victims of a fascist dictator. How some Labour Members of Parliament could actually want to water down a response to an aggressive fascist dictator, I could not understand then and I still do not understand today.

https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmhansrd/cm130410/debtext/130410-0001.htm

P.S. People are not going around 'implying' that Blair is a war criminal; they are openly accusing him of being a war criminal. They want him to stand trial.

antrobus

westernpromise wrote: »

It is generally accepted that no system is fair.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627581-400-electoral-dysfunction-why-democracy-is-always-unfair/

Changing every 10 minutes to ensure you always get the result you like is not an improvement.

That's actually a very good explanation of why there is no such thing as the 'perfect' system for electing a government.

Now, if it was down to me, I'd go for STV and multi-member constituencies, but I'd much rather stick with FPTP rather than some party list type system.

But no voting system is going to change the fact that politics is going to be about different parties seeking to form a government. Politics is politics; it's no different in the UK, than it is anywhere else in the democratic world.

MyOnlyPost

antrobus wrote: »

Of course you don't make sense. It is perfectly clear that your a former Labour voter, supporter, member, whatever, who is disillusioned by the car-crash of New Labour, disappointed by post New Labour's failures, and has no idea of what to do any more.

I'm no fooled by your mock tone of moral superiortity, and your disingenuous pleas for 'balance'.

Nobody but a diehard leftist could post this kind of nonsense;

You have no idea what my voting history is and are using my posts to make assumptions which are ignorant of the facts. Rather than take at face value what I have said you have decided there must be some ulterior motive and my words are disingenuous. I find that quite arrogant and ill informed, maybe you are a 'kipper?

1992 I voted Lib Dem (Ashdowne)
1997 I voted Labour (Blair)
2001 I voted Labour (Blair)
2005 I voted Lib Dem (Kennedy)
2010 I voted Lib Dem (Clegg)
2015 I voted Conservative (Cameron)

Oh, and I also own or have a 50% share in 5 BTL properties, so you're quite right, I am a diehard leftist. :rotfl:

I couldn't care less whether you find my posts genuine, think I'm on a wind up or whatever. I am firm in my beliefs. I am a centrist who believes in capitalism but feels society should be judged by how we treat our weakest. The fact that you can't respect someone elses opinion that doesn't conform with your own says more about you than me

Thrugelmir

MyOnlyPost wrote: »

Oh, and I also own or have a 50% share in 5 BTL properties, so you're quite right, I am a diehard leftist. :rotfl:

What's the connection? Nicola Sturgeon used to employ a personal shopper. Didn't impact her political views.

MyOnlyPost

Thrugelmir wrote: »

What's the connection? Nicola Sturgeon used to employ a personal shopper. Didn't impact her political views.

You have taken one sentence and quoted it rather than the whole point

MyOnlyPost wrote: »

1992 I voted Lib Dem (Ashdowne)
1997 I voted Labour (Blair)
2001 I voted Labour (Blair)
2005 I voted Lib Dem (Kennedy)
2010 I voted Lib Dem (Clegg)
2015 I voted Conservative (Cameron)

Oh, and I also own or have a 50% share in 5 BTL properties, so you're quite right, I am a diehard leftist. :rotfl:

However to respond to you point google the phrase "SNP left or right" and you will see that there is plenty of opinion out there that the SNP under Nicola Sturgeon is not a left wing or even progressive left of center party. They can better be described as a populist party who will go wherever the wind blows in order to retain power (akin to New Labour). Some policies are left wing, some are right wing. They have no real ideology, just one ultimate goal.

Finally leftists by definition aren't capitalists so the notion of a true leftist being a BTL landlord is quite odd.

zagubov

MyOnlyPost wrote: »

However to respond to you point google the phrase "SNP left or right" and you will see that there is plenty of opinion out there that the SNP under Nicola Sturgeon is not a left wing or even progressive left of center party. They can better be described as a populist party who will go wherever the wind blows in order to retain power (akin to New Labour). Some policies are left wing, some are right wing. They have no real ideology, just one ultimate goal.

I think you'll find they have one heck of a knack for positioning themselves on the left-right axis, in a way that the other parties can only envy.

MyOnlyPost

zagubov wrote: »

I think you'll find .

The first part of your post seems to suggest you disagree with me

zagubov wrote: »

they have one heck of a knack for positioning themselves on the left-right axis, in a way that the other parties can only envy.

Then you go on to restate in different terms what I said

zagubov

MyOnlyPost wrote: »

The first part of your post seems to suggest you disagree with me

If we look into the details I doubt if we do.

Then you go on to restate in different terms what I said

I think what you said could benefit from the re-phrasing, but I'm prepared to accept I might be wrong.