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

Moby

Conrad wrote: »

Pertinent to Labours future, Newsnight last night did a long piece from Holland by Gabriel Gatehouse who grew up there. The conclusion was that the famous liberalism associated with the Dutch is well and truly a thing of the past.


This is why I keep banging on about 'liberalism' and 'progressives' being well past sell by date.


Labour is associated with lefty liberalism in the public consciousness. Peoples sense of fairness is at odds with the fairness 'progressives' have bought us.


We can bang on all day about Blair, Corbyn and Labour but in the end the essential problem for the left in general is that it is mis-alighned with the public mood. I have a thread on this death of liberalism in Discussion Time

All you are describing is your view of the world. The public mood changes. You don't speak on behalf of 'people' or the public consciousness. You just speak on behalf of yourself. For instance thousands of people were demonstrating against the cuts in the NHS in London on Saturday. Don't they count as 'people' then? How do they fit in with your contention?

There is nothing in your 'analysis' that proves that liberalism is dead. Things move in cycles. Fukuyama contended we'd reached the 'End of History' with the 'victory' of Globalism and Liberalism in the early nineties:-
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/mar/21/bring-back-ideology-fukuyama-end-history-25-years-on
He was as wrong then as you are now!
Going back to the point of the thread.... a fair and balanced analysis from a somewhat disillusioned Owen Jones:-
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/01/corbyn-staying-not-good-enough

Moby

mrginge wrote: »

He's like labours very own Margaret thatcher.

Time has been and gone. Longer you cling on to the 'glory' days then the longer you'll be stuck with the likes of Corbyn.

Point taken....he is irreparably damaged by Iraq of course but I still think he has a lot that's useful to say. His Bloomberg speech was spot on imo! Present day politicians are slow and cumbersome in comparison.

westernpromise

Moby wrote: »

The truth is you tories fear him and also secretly respect him because he was successful and capable. By the way the tories in general supported the war in Iraq....something that gets conveniently forgotten now!

No, he is despised as a blood-soaked liar. Iraq and lying is all he will be remembered for, like Eden and Suez. He was a venal, corrupt and incompetent butcher.

The Tories supported the Iraq war on the basis of what Blair presented to the HoC and on the presumption that no PM would lie to draw us into a war. Once it became clear that Blair had lied, that support was withdrawn.

Conrad

Moby wrote: »

There is nothing in your 'analysis' that proves that liberalism is dead. Things move in cycles.

Even Davis stated last night on Newsnight that 'we seem to be endlessly discussing the end of liberalism'.

It's been being discussed throughout the media and online scene for months on end.


My opinion broadly agrees with the wide consensus that 'liberalism' / 'progressive' politics are now misaligned with the broad general public mind.


It's no skin off my nose if you are unaware of this significant shift in the public consciousness. If you want to think this is just my opinion, hey ho.


Type the word liberal into Youtube, I think you're in for a shock


I tiny minority of out of touch middle class luvvie protestors is neither here nor there. They pretty much represent a very quaint out dated world view utterly at odds with the mass of good working class people these snobs have feigned to speak for (but now dismiss as northern Brexit thicko's etc)

westernpromise

What's interesting in this thread is the complete absence so far of any rationale for the continuing existence of the Labour Party. There have been predictable displays of sanctimony, self-righteousness and economic envy, and I've been scolded for pointing these out, but it seems that really is about it.

So when does Labour split?

Moby

westernpromise wrote: »

No, he is despised as a blood-soaked liar. Iraq and lying is all he will be remembered for, like Eden and Suez. He was a venal, corrupt and incompetent butcher.

The Tories supported the Iraq war on the basis of what Blair presented to the HoC and on the presumption that no PM would lie to draw us into a war. Once it became clear that Blair had lied, that support was withdrawn.

A moralising tory:rotfl: hypocrite! What nonsense....the tories were up for it anyway. The opposition to the war came from the left! The tories are up to their necks in foreign adventure blood!....Coming from the party that worships at the House of Saud.......bombed Libya into the dust and took us into the Suez crisis! Humbug!

Moby

westernpromise wrote: »

What's interesting in this thread is the complete absence so far of any rationale for the continuing existence of the Labour Party. There have been predictable displays of sanctimony, self-righteousness and economic envy, and I've been scolded for pointing these out, but it seems that really is about it.

So when does Labour split?

What's actually predictable is you are ploughing your usual well worn furrow under the pretext of 'encouraging debate';)

westernpromise

Moby wrote: »

A moralising tory:rotfl: hypocrite! What nonsense....the tories were up for it anyway. The opposition to the war came from the left! The tories are up to their necks in foreign adventure blood!....Coming from the party that worships at the House of Saud.......bombed Libyia into the dust and took us into the Suez crisis! Humbug!

And yet oddly enough it is only the Labour Party that is perceived as dishonest and corrupt in its foreign entanglements; it's only Labour that has had a sitting Prime Minister interviewed as part of a criminal investigation.

Your belief that Labour has the right to criticise others morally has much to do with Labour's fortunes and, inshallah, looming oblivion. You simply do not get how Labour is perceived.

Moby

Conrad wrote: »

Even Davis stated last night on Newsnight that 'we seem to be endlessly discussing the end of liberalism'.

It's been being discussed throughout the media and online scene for months on end.


My opinion broadly agrees with the wide consensus that 'liberalism' / 'progressive' politics are now misaligned with the broad general public mind.


It's no skin off my nose if you are unaware of this significant shift in the public consciousness. If you want to think this is just my opinion, hey ho.


Type the word liberal into Youtube, I think you're in for a shock


I tiny minority of out of touch middle class luvvie protestors is neither here nor there. They pretty much represent a very quaint out dated world view utterly at odds with the mass of good working class people these snobs have feigned to speak for (but now dismiss as northern Brexit thicko's etc)

Saying the same thing in a different way does not progress your argument one jot. I repeat things move in cycles...they always do. The current media hype you are buying into is a fashion, or a trend....it'll change. Globalisation is here to stay, like it or not! Advances in technology, the pressures of movements of people, communications, people in Africa wanting what we have etc are irresistable forces long term! Preparing for it would be better than hiding from it! Our Brexit vote and Trump's America is just a small part of the jigsaw. China, India, Russia, Turkey, Brazil will see to that!
By the way there is no 'consensus' amongst the 'broad public mind' You are just getting carried away with your dreams and hoping reality reflects what you would like the world to look like.;)
Your characterisation of the demonstration is also at odds with the people I saw and conversed with. They did not at all come across as how you describe them........perhaps you observed, (because you were obviously there of course) Chakrabarti in the crowd and thought ....yes that's Labour for you!.......even more evidence of the collapse of liberalism:rotfl:

Moby

westernpromise wrote: »

And yet oddly enough it is only the Labour Party that is perceived as dishonest and corrupt in its foreign entanglements; it's only Labour that has had a sitting Prime Minister interviewed as part of a criminal investigation.

Your belief that Labour has the right to criticise others morally has much to do with Labour's fortunes and, inshallah, looming oblivion. You simply do not get how Labour is perceived.

That's not true at all. There has been a lot of criticism of Cameron's policy in Libya. The Suez crisis badly damaged our foreign policy; Thatcher was heavily criticised for being close to the House of Saud. Harold Wilson did well to resist American pressure and keep us out of Vietnam.
Your views are skewed by your politics....always have been. Try being a bit more balanced....debate would be healthier!