The Labour Party Has Principles- But If You Don't Like Them It Has Others.

[wonderpup]

Is it just me or has something quite fundamental changed in politics of late.

I listen to the candidates for the labour leadership and what I am hearing is the language of marketing. The issue is not about values, or beliefs or even ideologies- it's about how the Labour party can rebrand itself into a product that more people will buy into come the next election.

Of course there has always been an element of salesmanship in politics- but this salesmanship was a tool deployed in the service of a value system and a set of core principles- it was about persuading the electorate that your particular world view was the best or the fairest or the most valid.

But listen carefully to the things being said by the current candidates for the leadership of the Labour party and you will discover that these people do not in fact profess to have any values or principles- they rather present themselves as blank sheets upon which the electorate can write it's own shopping list of requirements.

"Tell us who to be!" is the anguished cry we now hear coming from the wounded labour elite- but surely they have missed the point, have lost themselves in some marketing labyrinthe and are now so confused that they have come to believe that simply being elected is enough. But what do they want to be elected for? What is the point of it all?

A person who will be anything you want them to be is a person without principles or morality- why would I vote for such a person? Or for a party that is led by such a person?

The irony is that by replacing their values with marketing objectives these people now have nothing left of value to sell.

[tinker]

The female character of 50 Shades of Grey was sufficiently non-descriptive that woman going to see the film could paint themselves as her - hence its success.

Modern day politics is without soul or principal. It used to be "I got into politics to make a difference (to others)..." now it's all about the personal benefit - enrichment or fulfilment of some narcissistic fantasy.

The Labour leadership contest is one devoid of everything they actually need to connect with real people. It's all about the marketing... people have moved on.

[ZeroSumGame]

The Labour party doesn't need a new leader, it needs a purpose.

Ideally it would shrivel up and die and leave the representation of the common working man to either UKIP or the Greens.

There's a void out there to represent those who earn less than £80K per annum.

The genre of PPE graduates, who have never done a real day's work in their lives, before spending their days loafing in politics is surely coming to a halt, and that must be evident even to the most dull of Sun-reading dullards.

Edited June 12, 2015 by ZeroSumGame

[Roman Roady]

As a country we have no real values any more. We get the politicians we deserve.

[houses-do-my-head-in]

I was saying the same thing in the staffroom the other day. they lost so think they have to change tack. if they had any principals at all they would stick with them if they truly believed in them. they just want power to feather their nests.

but then it got me thinking....how many labour candidates actually thought about what they believe in at all. or do they just follow the camp/gang mentality.thats a problem too. a parliament of independents would produce far fairer results and genuine debate rather than "you did this" and "its your fault" squabbling

i honestly think many MP's have no clue about the real problems or solutions and just blindly follow party lines. what i want to know is who actually sets the party lines?

[MarkG]

Modern politics is about money and power. There's no place for principles.

[LiveinHope]

I was saying the same thing in the staffroom the other day. they lost so think they have to change tack. if they had any principals at all they would stick with them if they truly believed in them. they just want power to feather their nests.

but then it got me thinking....how many labour candidates actually thought about what they believe in at all. or do they just follow the camp/gang mentality.thats a problem too. a parliament of independents would produce far fairer results and genuine debate rather than "you did this" and "its your fault" squabbling

i honestly think many MP's have no clue about the real problems or solutions and just blindly follow party lines. what i want to know is who actually sets the party lines?

I guess that you have never been with MPs before they enter a division lobby ? It's all about party lines. When the bell rings they often don't even know what bill they are voting upon, unless it's a 'big bill'. It's jump up from behind the desk, maybe a glance at the TV screen, a run to the elevator, exit via the tunnel from Portcullis House and a make a mad dash to the lobby and vote along party lines - it's like that for virtually all MPs.

Having said that, very many MPs are very hard working and do put their time into the constituency by meeting real people and listening to their problems. That said, they are undeniably in a world of their own too from spending 4 out of 7 days in the Westminster bubble with the cosy privileges that brings.

BBC radio 4s PM is doing a very good series of short 'lunch interviews' with some of the newly recruited MPs who have just been elected for the first time.

For example Johnny Mercer who seems to be getting noticed. If you are interested, listen from 36.07s

(no connection to the guy. I just work with MPs on occasion)

Edited June 13, 2015 by LiveinHope

[Dorkins]

The Labour party is full of well-meaning thickos who went into politics to 'help the poor' and 'stop the Tories'. The Labour backbenches are full of them and you get the odd famous one like Diane Abbott.

Unfortunately their lack of intelligence and failure to read and digest things written by smarter people means that they aren't capable of putting together a coherent strategy for how to 'help the poor' that might actually work (like shifting taxation away from labour and onto land, abolishing means-tested benefits and replacing with a basic income etc) so instead they argue for policies that are simple enough for them to understand but which just end up giving money to rentiers (living wage, affordable/shared ownership housing, grants for landlords to improve their properties).

Then on top of this thicko cake you have a layer of PPE psychopath icing which tells the thickos "without us you are unelectable, we know how to appeal to the centre so that we can get into government, no point in politics without power".

[Dorkins]

Having said that, very many MPs are very hard working and do put their time into the constituency by meeting real people and listening to their problems. That said, they are undeniably in a world of their own too from spending 4 out of 7 days in the Westminster bubble with the cosy privileges that brings.

Yes, many MPs pride themselves on their "constituency work", but frankly they are in national and not local politics and are usually just taking on issues that should be the remit of the local councillor. If local governments in the UK had more power then councillors would be dealing with most of what MPs call "constituency issues" and MPs could focus on getting the big stuff right.

[gf3]

The thing that got me is that the Labour party is now behind a referendum. When they have just fought an election against one.

[LiveinHope]

Yes, many MPs pride themselves on their "constituency work", but frankly they are in national and not local politics and are usually just taking on issues that should be the remit of the local councillor. If local governments in the UK had more power then councillors would be dealing with most of what MPs call "constituency issues" and MPs could focus on getting the big stuff right.

Agree, I was just highlighting the constituency side to indicate that they can get contact with real people if they choose to do so, although many constituents they may meet might just be entrepreneurs of the BTL variety.

The whole country has run out of ideology, except this site perhaps

[gf3]

It's going to be very funny both Tories and Labour both saying 'we are for a referendum' but then try and outdo each other in the 'we must stay in, we'll change it from within' camp.

It will be the classic example of showing people that the choice is 'the establishment' or...... 'the establishment'.

Any changes they negotiate will be forgotten in 30 years if not sooner. The establishment takes little notice of what the people want. Inside the EU the establishment will take no notice at all.

[stormymonday_2011]

The Labour party doesn't need a new leader, it needs a purpose.

The National Executive Committee need to have that statement hung on the wall of each meeting in 3 foot high letters

The reason they got thumped in Scotland is that for all it faults the SNP has that central mission and reason for existence in spades. The same applies to lesser extent to UKIP when it can can keep its focus on Europe.. That is something which the current Labour Party simply can not match. If you listen to the current leadership contenders you would imagine the sole purpose of the party was so that they and their coterie of apparatchiks could get into office. They need a value system which contains a bit more than just a desire to be elected. WIthout the FPTP electoral system and very generous current constituency boundary arrangement the Labour party would already have broken in two.

Edited June 13, 2015 by stormymonday_2011

[crashmonitor]

I think this is why Labour are dead. They failed horrifically at the election and have come to the conclusion that all their progressive policies were wrong because of this. So now they are saying that rent caps, the mansion tax etc were wrong and they basically should have just copied the Tories. So their strategy now is to basically be a Tory clone party with various neoliberal policies that nobody supports and with politicians who are basically ruthless actors who will do the bidding of whoever gives them some power. They have lost all credibility and as a Tory lite party they won't get anywhere because the Tony Blair era is over (thank god) and there is already a Tory party to represent real Tories. Labour are now a schizophrenic party with no direction whose moral core has been hollowed out. And I don't think David Miliband would be as popular as he thinks he will be, as people now look negatively on Blair and nuLabour.

My main problem with Labour is they just can't stop wanting to distribute money to their tribe...welfare, public sector; far from being unpopular the mansion tax would be very popular. How many people have houses over 2 million pounds and it is revenue raising without being detrimental to the economy.

But the biggie is they just have to draw a line under the madness of 2000-2007...running deficits and tripling house prices which handed over a Ponzi scheme beyond tapering. Admit you were wrong and then you will be electable again. It was the worst economic management in UK history.

[BorrowToLeech]

The Labour party is full of well-meaning thickos who went into politics to 'help the poor' and 'stop the Tories'. The Labour backbenches are full of them and you get the odd famous one like Diane Abbott.

Unfortunately their lack of intelligence and failure to read and digest things written by smarter people means that they aren't capable of putting together a coherent strategy for how to 'help the poor' that might actually work (like shifting taxation away from labour and onto land, abolishing means-tested benefits and replacing with a basic income etc) so instead they argue for policies that are simple enough for them to understand but which just end up giving money to rentiers (living wage, affordable/shared ownership housing, grants for landlords to improve their properties).

Then on top of this thicko cake you have a layer of PPE psychopath icing which tells the thickos "without us you are unelectable, we know how to appeal to the centre so that we can get into government, no point in politics without power".

The Labours haven't really had an ideology since they lost the 1980s. It's all diversity and community now.

They should just rebrand themselves 'Nicis' and have done with it.

What we need, in my opinion, is a left-wing small-government party.

Call the libertarians on their hypocrisy, and they'd have nothing.

[BorrowToLeech]

My main problem with Labour is they just can't stop wanting to distribute money to their tribe...welfare, public sector;

Both parties do that. The problem with the Labour party is that they have abandoned their original tribe, labour, and consequently won't get votes from working people.

[Executive Sadman]

At the risk of being completely boring...and I was one of those approaching the election from the Peter Hitchens 'tories will never win again' types due to UKIP taking tory votes and Libdem going labour, the main reason labour didnt win is Libdems are far closer to the tories than they are labour.

Since 2000, libdems have been viewed by many protest voters and students as a slightly more left wing labour party, but the reality is they have throughout the last 100 years been closer to the tories.

In 1992, some senior libdems (David steel to name one, IIRC) urged libdem voters to vote tory to keep labour out. Check out their 1960s and 1970s manifestos too, they were very much against the nationalizations labour was performing and increased union power.

I guess many of those old liberals are dying off now (my late grandad was one...lived in rural norfolk, voted liberal, but was very much anti-socialism, would certainly never vote labour), but the left wing social-democratic part of the libdems has been a fairly recent strand. (1980s on)

So, in retrospect, it shouldnt perhaps have been such a surprise to see the non-student, non-protest core libdem vote go to the tories to keep labour out.

[thecrashingisles]

My main problem with Labour is they just can't stop wanting to distribute money to their tribe...welfare, public sector; far from being unpopular the mansion tax would be very popular. How many people have houses over 2 million pounds and it is revenue raising without being detrimental to the economy.

But the biggie is they just have to draw a line under the madness of 2000-2007...running deficits and tripling house prices which handed over a Ponzi scheme beyond tapering. Admit you were wrong and then you will be electable again. It was the worst economic management in UK history.

Liz Kendall's said a few interesting things on this including that the goal should be to redistribute power more than redistributing money.

[South Lorne]

Is it just me or has something quite fundamental changed in politics of late.

I listen to the candidates for the labour leadership and what I am hearing is the language of marketing. The issue is not about values, or beliefs or even ideologies- it's about how the Labour party can rebrand itself into a product that more people will buy into come the next election.

Of course there has always been an element of salesmanship in politics- but this salesmanship was a tool deployed in the service of a value system and a set of core principles- it was about persuading the electorate that your particular world view was the best or the fairest or the most valid.

But listen carefully to the things being said by the current candidates for the leadership of the Labour party and you will discover that these people do not in fact profess to have any values or principles- they rather present themselves as blank sheets upon which the electorate can write it's own shopping list of requirements.

"Tell us who to be!" is the anguished cry we now hear coming from the wounded labour elite- but surely they have missed the point, have lost themselves in some marketing labyrinthe and are now so confused that they have come to believe that simply being elected is enough. But what do they want to be elected for? What is the point of it all?

A person who will be anything you want them to be is a person without principles or morality- why would I vote for such a person? Or for a party that is led by such a person?

The irony is that by replacing their values with marketing objectives these people now have nothing left of value to sell.

...it's a race to the lowest common denominator.....

[pig]

Is it just me or has something quite fundamental changed in politics of late.

I listen to the candidates for the labour leadership and what I am hearing is the language of marketing. The issue is not about values, or beliefs or even ideologies- it's about how the Labour party can rebrand itself into a product that more people will buy into come the next election.

Of course there has always been an element of salesmanship in politics- but this salesmanship was a tool deployed in the service of a value system and a set of core principles- it was about persuading the electorate that your particular world view was the best or the fairest or the most valid.

But listen carefully to the things being said by the current candidates for the leadership of the Labour party and you will discover that these people do not in fact profess to have any values or principles- they rather present themselves as blank sheets upon which the electorate can write it's own shopping list of requirements.

"Tell us who to be!" is the anguished cry we now hear coming from the wounded labour elite- but surely they have missed the point, have lost themselves in some marketing labyrinthe and are now so confused that they have come to believe that simply being elected is enough. But what do they want to be elected for? What is the point of it all?

A person who will be anything you want them to be is a person without principles or morality- why would I vote for such a person? Or for a party that is led by such a person?

The irony is that by replacing their values with marketing objectives these people now have nothing left of value to sell.

I don't really 'buy' any of that lol!

The question for the 'Labour' party, as ever, is how to evolve the Left beyond 20c 'socialism' , you know - trade unions, Marxism and so on. Actually, 'ideoloigically' its not that difficult. You can trawl through this site and some of the less barmy ideas by the Greens and get an idea of where their debate and policy might focus.

But then never mind blaspheming against old marxist or union 'conservatives', how to bring the electorate with you ? Its 2015, and it seems quite recent and tentative the degree that the electorate has realised that hpi is some sort of unfolding disaster.

Also, does the electorate actually give a sh*t about "values, or beliefs or even ideologies' as much as we would like ? Degenerating back to 'nationalism' in the SNP and UKIP not to mention the rest of Europe, actually seems a frustration with or inability to engage or cope with political thought.

I also suspect Parties are voted out as much as voted in, and in that respect there is probably little point sometimes in opposition Parties getting too hysterical . If nothing 'obvious' is going wrong - if you don't understand. for example, why policies such as RTB are actually screwing you and your children over - then why rock the boat ?

[South Lorne]

......Degenerating back to 'nationalism' in the SNP and UKIP not to mention the rest of Europe, actually seems a frustration with or inability to engage or cope with political thought........

......Scotland going on it's own would help us restore democracy due to the West Lothian question....the current UK being a net contributor to Europe, they need us more than we need them ...watch progress after the Greeks leave ..that will be Greek progress ...the market is a race to the bottom but helps Germany with the reunification costs with East Germany which they see as a positive and the French would not like to lose the common agricultural policy, while we see it as a way of landowners being paid subsidies not to farm their land in this country ....nothing is obvious and each country is out for what is best for them ......

Edited June 13, 2015 by South Lorne

[wonderpup]

If you listen to the current leadership contenders you would imagine the sole purpose of the party was so that they and their coterie of apparatchiks could get into office.

Exactly- but whats so interesting about this is the fact that they don't see this as a problem. And the reason- I think- is that on some deep level these people have internalized the idea that their role is not to lead but to 'manage.'

So it is regarding their potential as managers that they wish to be judged by- not their potential as leaders.

They have identified the failure of Milliband to have been his foolish attachment to the idea of being in any way able to oppose or challenge the prevailing order- that, they now realize- is not their role. If they wish to get back into power they must be 'business friendly' and they must pay the proper respect to the 'wealth creators' and never, ever again allow themselves to be caught in the act of questioning the wisdom or inevitability of 'market forces' as the oracle of our destiny.

In short their strategy to win requires them to abandon every remaining vestige of the values and principles upon which the Labour party was founded- because at it's heart Labour was a movement that championed the idea that the Market was not the only arbiter of human affairs- that there must also be room for other voices and other values.

Which makes them in a very literal sense redundant. After all, the rallying cry of 'Vote for us, we won't rock the boat' is hardly what the founders of the Labour movement had in mind- was it?

[South Lorne]

....Exactly- but whats so interesting about this is the fact that they don't see this as a problem. And the reason- I think- is that on some deep level these people have internalized the idea that their role is not to lead but to 'manage.'.......

....too right ...the party 'leader' manages for Labour ...the Unions lead ....

[Guest UK Debt Slave]

Is it just me or has something quite fundamental changed in politics of late.

I listen to the candidates for the labour leadership and what I am hearing is the language of marketing. The issue is not about values, or beliefs or even ideologies- it's about how the Labour party can rebrand itself into a product that more people will buy into come the next election.

Of course there has always been an element of salesmanship in politics- but this salesmanship was a tool deployed in the service of a value system and a set of core principles- it was about persuading the electorate that your particular world view was the best or the fairest or the most valid.

But listen carefully to the things being said by the current candidates for the leadership of the Labour party and you will discover that these people do not in fact profess to have any values or principles- they rather present themselves as blank sheets upon which the electorate can write it's own shopping list of requirements.

"Tell us who to be!" is the anguished cry we now hear coming from the wounded labour elite- but surely they have missed the point, have lost themselves in some marketing labyrinthe and are now so confused that they have come to believe that simply being elected is enough. But what do they want to be elected for? What is the point of it all?

A person who will be anything you want them to be is a person without principles or morality- why would I vote for such a person? Or for a party that is led by such a person?

The irony is that by replacing their values with marketing objectives these people now have nothing left of value to sell.

The labour party abandoned its founding principles a long time ago

It took a very skilled group of charlatans to rebrand the Labour Party into "a product" the electorate would buy. You cannot deny that Blair and Mandelson's "New Labour" was a brilliant PR success.

The end result however was a familiar one..........economic ruin. In addition to the gigantic quangocray they created, they presided over the explosion of mass immigraion, the destruction of the pension system, the biiggest credit bubble in human history and the huge deception that rising houseprices would make people wealthier.

The Labour Party never disappoints. Whenever they manage to fool the electorate to elect them into power, they ruin everything.

The New Labour project was the last throw of the dice

A lot of traditional labour supporters now understand that the Labour Party ceased to represent the interests of ordinary working people ages ago. Many of these people voted for UKIP or even the Tories. Many others are so cynical about politics, they have chosen not to participate in democracy at all. Labour's abject failure to improve the lives of the people it was founded to represet was compounded by the hopelsss stewardship of the party under Miliband, who believed right up till the last hours of the election that he was destined for No.10. His miscalculation was breathtaking. I was absolutely stunned by the scale of labour's defeat.

They have nothing left to sell. The people that the Labour Party used to represent, the factory workers, the people who grafted in heavy industry and manufacturing, those people are all gone. A lot of the traditional whte working class people are now consigned to a life of benefit dependency on sink estates with no hope, no aspiration and no motives to drag themselves out of their despair.

Who would vote for the Labour party now? Only the public sector workers and others who live off the largesse of the state. It's still a considerable number of people, but not enough to keep them in power.

The labour Party is DEAD and good riddence to it.

I wish I could say I believe the Tories will be a big improvement, but it seems they have also abandoned all their tradiational principles. People no longer vote for the party they believe will improve their lives. They vote for the party they believe is the least worst option. Despite the fact that the Tories are a hopeless bunch of cretins, we have escaped the even worse horrors of a Miliband government.

Edited June 15, 2015 by UK Debt Slave

[Northerner]

...it's a race to the lowest common denominator.....