After Eastleigh, the crisis of party politics
The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.
Antonio Gramsci: Selections from the Prison Notebooks (1971)
The old party political system of Britain is creaking to a standstill. Last night's result in Eastleigh, after Bradford West, sends yet another shock wave through its ageing bones. It is the latest manifestation of an emerging multi-party politics squeezed into an electoral system designed for a two horse race. But this shock will be more enduring. UKIP could present a sustainable and repeatable challenge to the three big parties in a way that Respect never could. If UKIP can do so remarkably well in Eastleigh then they can do it anywhere – at the next by-election and even a general election
The lessons and implications are there for all to see – not just for the individual parties themselves but for the whole party system. So we can use Eastleigh not just to better understand who’s up and who’s down in the Westminster stakes but to discern the seismic shifts that are happening in the UK, just as they are in Italy (revealed earlier in the week) and will inevitably re-occur in other countries.
So let’s start with the party round up. A big winner was UKIP. They are now the nation's fourth party and are challenging the Liberal Democrats for the third place spot. They have a populist wind in their sales and are making really reactionary weather. Immigration concerns, real or imagined, are a factor in many peoples lives and progressives need to deal with the causes of concern; the palpable lack of jobs, houses and decent public services more effectively. (For more on this see Lisa Nandy’s brilliant essay in our Elephants Left in the Room publication).
The Tories look like the biggest losers. Eastleigh was 55th on their target list and a must win seat. But governments don’t win by-elections, especially the week after a credit rating downgrade. Cameron faces a terrible squeeze, knowing he must attract the middle ground swing voters who want compassion, while keeping at bay the UKIP hordes. For him and his party everything hinges on perceptions of economic recovery.
Despite Huhne, Rennard and their woeful place in the national polls, the Liberal Democrats won. The relief will be palpable. Surely it shows they can’t be written off? Maybe. What’s more likely is that it shows, increasingly, that all politics is local. Impressively the Lib Dems can turn out an army of activists from across the country for a by-election but won’t be able to repeat the trick across the whole country at the next general election. Meanwhile the stoicism of the party faithful remains touching, if misplaced. “We only had nine MPs in 1964 – we rebuilt once, we can do so again” - they say but the planet and the poor can’t wait that long. And just when we need a politics of social liberalism – their leadership has swung them towards neo-liberalism. The radical social liberal wing in the party has yet to find its full voice and good members continue to bleed away, some to Labour but most drop out of party politics altogether. It’s essential that, in whatever form and place, the politics of radical social liberalism is kept alive and flourishes (which among other things recognises the role of the state in achieving a more equal society). All progressives must work as hard as possible with the remaining social liberal wing – whether they take back their party or break away – it is essential that a centre-right coalition doesn’t become the default option in British politics.
It’s also clear that Labour were not the party of anti-coalition protest in Eastleigh, a seat in which they came second in 1994 and started the campaign with three times the support of UKIP. The One Nation party couldn’t strike a chord in this bit of the country. In truth they never knew if they wanted to. They vacillated and lost badly. A decent and potentially interesting candidate, John O’Farrell was buttoned up and took the safe respectable route - echoing the wider party strategy; to show glimpses of radicalism in speeches while the overall approach remains cautious and risk averse. For example the mansion tax is a good beltway tactic but it’s not the game changer a country stuck in economic, social and environmental recession needs.
Ed Miliband has shored up his weak leadership position and has made a real breakthrough on some key issues. But the legacy of New Labour has not yet been cast aside, too many are overly cautious – for them, it's all about waiting for the Tories to lose so that the party can go back largely to where it was before it was rudely interrupted. The party is doing better but isn’t doing anywhere near well enough to develop the ideas, policies and alliances to mean that we could be confident that the return of a Labour government in 2015 could make a real and lasting difference. What is the party’s position on the hugely significant issue of Europe, the existential challenge of environmental degradation or even public service reform?
One nation played well as a party conference rallying call. But it feels more like a mantra of party management than of national renewal – the void in which everyone inside the party can claim their place and their policy. But, unlike a good society, it is not a visionary organising concept that could mobile a broad and deep coalition. And if anyone in Labour thinks the rise of UKIP is a good thing because it will take votes from the Tories – then it shows just how bankrupt the party has become. ‘Who cares how far the mood swings to the right as long as we sit on the governing benches!’ Any scent in the nostrils of the electorate that growth is coming back will allow the Tories the devastating election mantra of ‘we are sorry it's been so tough and taken so long, but the economic mess Labour left and we had to clear up was worse than we could have imaged. Don’t let Labour ruin it again’.
As for the Green Party, they have just celebrated their 40th anniversary and this will no doubt be a time of soul searching and reflection for many members. They have recently changed their leader and it’s too soon to say what that will mean but while many of their policies remain strong there is little sign yet of any electoral breakthrough or even a strategy for influence.
Out here in the real world austerity bites, insecurity rules and no one is offering a feasible alternative. In the middle of a horse meat and a gas price/profit scandal no leading politician is saying that affordable heating and healthy eating might be incompatible with the profit motive and that the rip-off culture must come to an abrupt and absolute end. When it comes to the essentials of life; of food, heating and homes we should be looking at new forms of accountable and responsive public ownership – beyond either the free market or the remote state.
So, after Eastleigh the trends are clear. The fighting between the parties will become more intense but less meaningful. Each party will micro-target seats and votes using new technology. Messages will be precision bombed. But no real alternatives for the growing number of UK food banks or our burning planet are being conjured up.
All indications suggest that 2015 will produce the lowest turnout ever – below even the miserable 59% in 2005. So the biggest winner to come out of Eastleigh isn’t UKIP but the stay at home, be rational and don’t vote party – because if you do vote, nothing changes by anywhere near enough.
But outside of these almost Victorian party structures, politics for millions continue to flourish both intellectually and organisationally. Just think of the way tax justice has become a mainstream issue, now picked up by MPs such as Margaret Hodge, because of the likes of UK Uncut and the Tax Justice Network. Meanwhile 38 degrees, Transition Towns, Citizens UK, the ripples from Occupy, some trade unions and NGOs continue to take the lead alongside books like the Spirit Level, Prosperity Without Growth and Cancel the Apocalypse.
And yet political parties still matter. No one has yet devised a feasible alternative way to aggregate demands and put coherent competing proposals to the electorate. Indeed, it is impossible to imagine building a good society without something that resembles the Labour Party playing a big and leading role with other parties. There can be no party-less politics. It feels like a case of ‘we cant live with them and we cant live with out them’.
So we have to save party politics – not in their old form – but by reinventing them. This means parties being far stronger in terms of the values of greater equality, sustainability and democracy but much softer in terms of culture, strengthening their own internal democracy and practicing a politics of pluralism with other parties and forces in civil society. Not least because of the likelihood of another coalition.
Eastleigh is just another reminder that formal representative democracy is going through a systemic crisis. It is not a crisis solely of the UK or progressives but it particularly affects those that want to see fundamental change. The crisis has at least three layers. There is the separation of power from politics and politics from power, as capital has gone up to the level of global flows of finance and investment but democracy has failed to follow. Second, capitalism has mined deep into our emotions and psyche as the consumerisation of life and society has taken an overwhelming grip on popular culture. In essence, the good life is just another purchase away – not a vote. And third the very tribal and hierarchical nature of political parties is increasingly out of step with the modern mood in which people have multiple identities and want a voice and a say in how things are done.
It means there are limits to what parties can do, just as there are limits to what civil society can achieve. What we need is a new political ecology in which all progressive politicians work together to do more and build alliances with extra-parliamentary forces so that we can face the crisis of capitalism and the fast emerging environmental crisis with confidence that a good society is not just desirable but feasible. Eastleigh is another wake up call. Who out there is listening?
Want to write an article like this? If you’re a Compass member you can submit your own articles and start your own debates on the Compass debates member’s section, an autonomous space for our members to initiate debate and discuss ideas.
To keep updated on the latest Compass news, please join our mailing list.




















Comments
on 28 April 2013, 11:44:01 PM
The community systematize of teeth is be like across the vertebrates, although there is sizeable modifying in their form and position. The teeth of mammals be struck by serious roots, and this figure is also create in some fish, and in crocodilians. In most teleost fish, manner, the teeth are spoken for to the outer outside of the bone, while in lizards they are fond of to the inner come up of the jaw by way of the same side. In cartilaginous fish, such as sharks, the teeth are attached around cold ligaments to the hoops of cartilage that form the jaw.
on 09 March 2013, 5:52:49 PM
on 07 March 2013, 9:48:17 AM
I can remember the days before we joined, when we had impure drnking water and polluted rivers and coastal waters, as well as bad air! These have all been cleaned up thanks to EU regulations, despite the usual grumbles at the time.
Don't let us turn our backs again!
on 05 March 2013, 11:51:04 AM
As is the case in Italy, I think all the parties are currently flawed in their ability to appeal to a consensus majority. The Tories, whilst many would back their economic stance, are seen as uncaring, prejudiced and out of touch with a rapidly evolving society. They share this with the Republican party in the States. Labour, despite the opinion polls, will struggle to shake off the suspicion of economic incompetence. And because their leader was elected not by the rank and file but by the trade unions, they will be caricatured, as the election campaign gets going, as the prisoners of the hard left. And there is an issue regarding the leader's gravitas. I fear it will end in tears for the two Eds. The LibDems are not a serious force and UKIP will only ever be a protest party.
So, all in all, not good. It may be an age-related delusion, but today's leading politicians seem to me to be a second rate bunch. I do, however, live in hope and have often been wrong!
on 05 March 2013, 9:28:42 AM
Further examples of this: philosophy in pubs groups, study circles, discussion circles, sci-bars (these mainly in the North West); and, with national recruitment, a residential event at Wortley Hall, near Sheffield, in May which is already viable, on 'Democracy - and the future of political parties'. For more information on all the above go to:
www.raymondwilliamsfoundation.org.uk
Derek Tatton
on 04 March 2013, 4:41:38 PM
2. The LibDems had prepared, Labour had not. Bradford West, where the Party completely underestimated George Galloway and did not see him coming, was similar. Labour should get candidates in place in all constituencies, and if a by-election is called work very closely with its grassroots, i.e. constituency, organisation on the ground.
3. Labour does not have an economic strategy. To get one it will need to reassess and rehabilitate Gordon Brown - who did indeed save the world's banking system (or took the lead in so doing), and hence most ordinary people's taxes and savings. Of course he made mistakes, and his bullying style was completely unacceptable, so any rehabilitation should also be critical.
4. Labour needs a rebuttal unit. The first line should be that every time a Conservative speaker blames the last Labour government for getting us into the present mess, the reply should be "Don't you realise that Gordon Brown saved the world's banking system, and your pensions too?"
Best regards
Andrew Coulson
on 04 March 2013, 1:44:56 PM
I think that one of the crucial things that has changed is that whereas in the early days of the ILP and Labour the party was the obvious agent for pursuing all the range of issues that people cared about this has become less and less true. There were of course single issue campaigns, pressure groups and so on back in the 19th and 20th centuries but while parties have declined they have grown and multiplied today. Yet trying to operate - as in my expereince Labour (of which I've been a member since 1964) does, simply as an electoral machine does not work. The general disdain for politicians and neglect of politics has been growing for decades and iseems to be reaching a crisis point. A real social-democratic party needs to be more than an election contesting organisation. It needs to be seen as a campaigning organisation - supplementing where appropriate the "specialised" single-issue campaigns without trying to displace them or take them over.. This would have to be done in a sustained and credible way. Holding meetings, rallies, demos, petitions etc etc in the run up to the local or national elections just reinforces the negative image that so many people have of politics generally."They're just after my vote."
There are reasons to be cheerful, however - if not nearly as many as we would all like. One is that the Tories have confirmed their reputation as the "stupid party" in their very effective opposition to electoral reform - which might have saved them as a genuine all - UK enterprise; they seem doomed to contest the role of Home Counties Know Nothing Party with UKIP. The rise of the latter is worrying - even though as Danny Finkelstein was saying on R4 this lunchtime in a FPTP election a seriously divided Right means there'll be a "left-wing" government. But - as the Compass statement touches on - how much can such a government do in the absence of real widespread popular support? The main reason for optimism is the results of that poll a year or so ago asking people which parties they would ever consider voting for and which not. While only around 40% said they might ever vote Conservative, something like 60% were prepared to contemplate voting Labour. Those are the people we should be addressing.
It's easy to criticise Ed M et al. But apart from the fact that he's having to work with so many who really wanted his brother as leader, it is understandable that he is being more cautious than I - and Compass - would like. He's the one who will get the blame when it all goes pear-shaped - not me. I remain catiously optimistic
Ian Bullock
on 03 March 2013, 7:33:17 PM
Ed Miliband needs to change the mood in the party before we see 1997 results or any change at the polls. How can a party be ready to govern when it is clear that lessons have not been learnt since 2010. The Blairites are still here. The Brownites are still here. Bottom up change is the only way forward. Top down should be consigned to the dustbin of history.
One Nation is not cutting through to the mainstream. Relating to Bradford, Eastleigh and other labour diasppointments, will it happen again. I am afraid it will.
UKIP are starting to resonate with the British people because Farage has found a way to communicate with the British people. As did Galloway. Miliband needs to get with it. Get rid of three quarters of his cabinet.
The answer is simple. Lets see how long he takes to work it out. If he doesn't and soon. The British people will start to move right because the centre left social democratic tradition will have failed.
The danger is the party machine will stay put and the people will look for something else.
on 03 March 2013, 9:11:57 AM
Now I sincerely hope the result will help drive the growing rift in the coalition.
As for one-nation Labour, that the press is saying isn't getting through - it never occurred to me that it meant anything other than lifting the poorer regions and areas to the levels of the richer. It doesn't mean the entire nation has to vote for one party. It's about equality. Sure, people in Eastleigh are suffering from the shameful cuts to welfare and from insecurity caused by austerity. Eastleigh town (as apart from the plusher areas between the M27 and the coast) is not affluent by South East standards, but Eastleigh is still hardly Hull.
So it comes down to the north-south divide. Was that mentioned in the campaign? Because in fact resources need to be distributed away from the south east - which is never going to be a vote-winner. When politics comes down to selfishness - which is how we've been encouraged to see it ever since the 1970s - Labour is going to have a hard job persuading those in the south to give anything away.
Labour retook Southampton City Council last year. It's the big cities in the southern strip of Hampshire that Labour needs to focus on - and unseating Mike Hancock in Gosport would be a good start. I won't be accommodating Lib Dem workers on that campaign.
on 02 March 2013, 5:48:22 PM
The point of this is whilst the Lib Dems national unpopularity remains, they can only hold on where they insulate themselves from national issues through building local loyalty - such as in Eastleigh and Watford. Even then their share of the vote in Eastleigh fell to just under a third and they only just held on.
By contrast, UKIP's meteroric rise is characterised by two main developments. Firstly they are the new Lib Dems - the repositry of protest votes and disaffected people - the Lib Dems are now part of the establishment. Secondly, and in this Nigel Farage is right, that UKIP talk about issues that concern people on which the three main parties have lost credibility. Two toxic issues are national identity and immigration.
The UKIP messages are sharp and clear - Britain out of Europe and stop immigration. The response of Cameron and to some extent Labour is to tack towards these messages in a way that is singularly unappealing to voters. Despite the Tories acclaiming the success of their immigration policy; the headlines last week were that net immigration still runs into six figures. And Labour has lost all credibility on immigration after the EU accession and not using the transitional arrangements. On Europe the pro-EU positon is between a rock and a hard place. We effectively have no influence over the euro crisis but our economy is now so closely linked with the eurozone that our economic fortunes are inextricably linked.
There may be worse to come. UKIP at the moment are pro-capitalist and free market but are beginning to talk about the impact of cuts on working class communities. The policy development and appeal of some European far-right parties such as in Netherlands and France is to pick up issues that are traditionally the ground of the left, e.g. social welfare and jobs.
This is Labour's ground and it is there we should fight. Yes mistakes were made around free flow of labour and this has contributed to pressures on housing and rents, on schools and on pay at the low end of the employment market. We must admit to these mistakes and apologise, but campaign around the creation of jobs and the supply of housing. Government and the local state can make a significant impact in these areas through redirected public investment. Michael Meacher's letter in today's Guardian is such a radical approach. Labour and Ed Miliband need to be bold and make the political agenda. We can still win in the South with such a message because its al about how we get the economy growing again. In this way UKIP's narrow agenda can be marginalised and the Tories shown to have failed.
on 02 March 2013, 5:33:19 PM
If the One Nation slogan is to be more than empty - indeed contemptuous - rhetoric, the Labour Party has to develop and articulate a clear progressive programme. One that goes beyond timidly following the lowest common denominator of doorstep opinion or hoping that currently favourable poll results will deliver a change of government in 2015. A programme that sets out what it would mean to have a good society. With policies that will challenge neoliberal ideology, not merely ameliorate its symptoms. Policies and actions that challenge the power of those whose democracy denying interests are served by society and the economy being undermined by income and other inequalities and by having a low wage, low skill, disempowered workforce; interests that would see the globe further dragged down by consumerism, unrestrained depredations of the environment and entrenched poverty and hunger. A programme that that does not pander to those who fuel fears about or reinforce discrimination against immigrants and other groups easily, opportunistically or lazily targeted for negative treatment. Lets not forget that women bear the brunt of the Coalition's austerity.
The Labour Party's apparent intention to make living standards, income inequality, a focus of the 2015 election is a good start. As might be Jon Cruddas's earning and belonging approach, as long as it does not turn out to be merely about managing austerity better than the Coalition or ditching the universality principle underlying our social security system. But there has to be more, the programme building process cannot be played out only in the Westminster bubble and it cannot be left to the Labour Party alone. Yes, the Party should work with bodies such as IPPR and the Resolution Foundation. But that is not enough, it has to reach out. Crucially it has to engage with progressive opinion and forces. Including other genuinely progressive political parties, but also unions, NGOs and civil society groups and movements like UK Uncut, the Occupy movement, etc. There is plenty of opposition to austerity and neoliberalism out there, but opposition alone is not enough. There also have to be routes to democratically achieving progressive change.
Surely Compass has a role to play here.
on 02 March 2013, 5:18:00 PM
Alan – sorry but this was a south of England by-election. We talked about Scotland in our AGM statement and Im discussing with others in Scotland how we can intervene in the flowering political debate. Again please help.
Rupert, you know im with you but the Greens cannot conceivable make a breakthrough in a by election like UKIP. Why not? I want to find the answer as much as you. The synergy of red, green and social liberal politics is our mutual goal. Lets find it.
And Sarah, Im overwhelmed by the activist intervention of the Lib Dems in Eastleigh. It was an amazing performance by so many people.
on 02 March 2013, 12:35:12 PM
I hope Miliband's upcoming speech on immigration does not repeat the errors of the New Labour years when we talked tough but knew that the reality was different. Farage is actually right - if you want to stop immigration you have to leave the EU. Miliband must tell the truth about immigration and not promise things he knows he can't deliver. He must make the case for a realistic and managed immigration policy. It won't satisfy the right wingers but it will have the benefit of honesty and that is a prize worth having.
on 02 March 2013, 11:59:00 AM
In Scotland the Conservative and Unionist Party is the 4th party, UKIP is insignificant. We have a Parliament (and a local government system) with (different) forms of proportional representation and nationally have had coalition government from 1999 until the present SNP majority regime in 2011.
The UK is no longer a 'unitary' state, neither is it a federation. Even if, as polls currently suggest, only about a third of citizens in Scotland vote 'Yes' in the 2014 referendum there will still be further constitutional change in the direction of more powers (including tax powers) moving to the Scottish parliament and government. I and some other progressive Compass and Labour Party members in Scotland are coming to the view that going the whole way to 'self-determination' now may offer the only basis for a stable evolution of government in Scotland and, even more significantly, for a move towards the kind of society that Compass is committed to - in Scotland (possibly taking something from the Scandanavian small states to whom Scotland - historically, culturally and geographically - seems rather closer than England).
Given the implicit or explicit elision between 'England' and 'Britain' which, sadly, characterises contributions from Compass along with the while set of London based political organisations the desirable cooperation between the nations of the British Isles might be more readily achieved through arrangements between an independent Scotland and England within the EU - if England still wished to remain a member.
on 02 March 2013, 9:42:54 AM
But I am unconvinced by many of the details, above. In particular, the claim that UKIP is now the 4th Party of British politics is still highly-questionable, an over-reaction to an impressive but still relatively-isolated byelection result. UKIP's strategy is basically still a national media strategy, and nothing more. UKIP barely exists on the ground anywhere in the country. This is one reason why it has hardly any Councillors. Its number of Councillors will undoubtedly go up, this May. BUT, I would suggest, it won't go up much.
The Green Party by contrast has about 140 Principal Authority Councillors now, and rising. We are the Opposition on a few Councils, and we even run one outright (Brighton). Plus of course we actually have an MP, unlike UKIP! I'd say that we are still the 4th Party of British politics.
But where you are right is that the result in Eastleigh does seems to suggest that duopoly politics in Britain is decisively broken, and that voters are increasingly ready to vote for Parties that are not merely scrabbling to show their credentials in the Westminster village. This is a profound challenge to Labour, which did badly in Eastleigh. Labour's enduring commitment to neoliberalism is now a long-term problem for it.
The Tory fantasy, meanwhile, has been that by focussing on Europe they could neutralise UKIP. The opposite is true. As anyone with a decent understanding of framing knows, by stoking interest in the opposition's issues, one stokes support for them too. Every time the Tories talk about Europe, NO MATTER WHAT THEY SAY, they increase likely UKIP support. In particular, promising an in-out referendum on the EU certainly INCREASED the basic 'salience' of UKIP. We now have a hard-right Party, whose positions are in no way seeking to appeal to 'the centre ground', and which deliberately positions itself outside the 'mainstream' on most issues, apparently within shooting distance of an MP.
Furthermore, in Eastleigh, the Tories had about the most UKIP-ish candidate imaginable, in Maria Hutchings. This too of course didn't help them. For, in the choice between UKIP and UKIP-lite, which do you think voters are likely to go for? So Hutchings probably gained the Tories approximately zero votes, while losing them a bunch of votes to the LibDems.
Those from parties that are not the big three, such as the Green Party and Respect, can take some considerable heart from the result - the number of voters prepared to vote outside the big three goes ever up. And, more crucially still: British voters are actively looking for an alternative to politics as usual. In Eastleigh, they went UKIP. In quite a number of places in England now, they tend to go Green. In Scotland, they frequently of course go SNP. It is less and less true that our country fits into the duopoly model so tragically encoded into 'first past the post'.
But the result also suggests that it is high time that the media turned their spotlight onto UKIP's seamier side. The electorate needs to know that UKIP are climate-denying loons; that a not-insignificant number of their MEPs (especially those that haven't already left UKIP, at least voluntarily!) past and present have confessed to or been found guilty of criminal acts; that they favour untrammelled free trade and new free trade agreements especially across the Atlantic, making us essentially the 51st state (the UK DependentonAmericaParty?); and that their policy platforms are out of sync with mainstream thinking in this country (especially perhaps in their reactionary social conservatism). Here are some of the ways one might seek to show this (thanks to Jonathan Kent for these ideas):
Health: UKIP like private models – and say they’re looking to places like the Netherlands – (mandatory health insurance so less well off get hit hardest for extra payments) or Australia (part privatised financed by extra 1.5% on income tax). So UKIP want to make you pay more and rely on private healthcare. Vote UKIP, and say goodbye to the NHS.
Education: UKIP want to give parents education vouchers. The wealthy get subsidised to send their children to private schools, (with a £3000 voucher you’ll still need an extra £7000 per year per child for a private school) so anyone who can’t fund the difference will be stuck with schools UKIP claims are no good. UKIP: Privatising education, for the benefit of at most the better-off. Vote UKIP if you want to undermine public education in this country.
Welfare: Anyone on any benefit – even vis a vis housing or council tax – faces compulsory welfare work schemes. UKIP: Welcoming millions to the chain gang.
UKIP's 28% vote in Eastleigh means that they aren't entitled to be treated as a fun sideshow any more. They need to be severely scrutinised now, as the Libdems were in the final run-up to the last general election (a scrutiny which put an end to Cleggmania). The British people need to know what a sorry bunch they are voting for, if they take their 'none of the above' vote and lend it to UKIP.
All of us progressives must seek to ensure that the votes that could be going to UKIP get diverted instead onto progressive Parties.
on 02 March 2013, 8:56:36 AM
Secondly, there was a very strong anti-politics mood, rather inevitably considering the reasons for the by-election. Thirdly, the UKIP campaign was very simple politics of fear in a time of great insecurity - suggesting that millions of Romanians and Bulgarians were about to arrive and take our jobs was not subtle but resonated with both Tory and yes Labour voters. Having fought the BNP in past elections, the messages were not dissimilar and we need to expose them and also explain how we would address the concerns around the impact of immigration and job insecurity, and start focusing on the employers who exploit these workers a bit more.
For those involved in politics, it means so much and is all-consuming (I know I'm a Councillor and Cabinet member and it takes over your life), but for most people they see us as irrelevant to their lives and 'all the same'. It's really hard to break the cynicism and the only thing that seems to work is being on the ground, representing people, arguing the case and engaging at all levels of society in a genuine way. We have to be the change if we think politics can make a difference.
on 01 March 2013, 8:58:12 PM
But I was somewhat taken aback by "Ed Miliband has shored up his weak leadership position and has made a real breakthrough on some key issues".
This is not because I think that Ed Miliband is a great leader but rather that all the alternatives are worse and because there are clearly forces on the right of the Party who would like to replace him with one of their own. If Compass joins in the sniping then it will contribute to that eventuality. Better to focus on policies than personalities.
Then we are told "The party is doing better but isn’t doing anywhere near well enough to develop the ideas, policies and alliances to mean that we could be confident that the return of a Labour government in 2015 could make a real and lasting difference".
Well, Compass's own Jon Cruddas is in charge of the Policy Review which is still remarkable mainly for its state of inactivity.
According to the article "One nation played well as a party conference rallying call. But it feels more like a mantra of party management than of national renewal" and I agree with that. Neal Lawson has said that "We wont know if One Nation is good enough until May 2015. But the leadership is investing in it and it looks like it will stick. It is our job to get behind it in a constructively critical way" and I am okay with that too (although I am not convinced that the "good society" is any better). Slogans are good when they express real content and not otherwise.
I thoroughly agree that no political party has been able to respond to a whole string of social, economic and political scandals by locating their source in the nature of our society. Labour continues to believe that it is just that some things are out of place and that a bit of tweaking here and there will make things different. They won't.
I wish I could agree that "outside of these almost Victorian party structures, politics for millions continue to flourish both intellectually and organisationally" but I don't find any of the examples given convincing. I don't think that tax justice has become a mainstream political issue. The Labour Party feels under exactly the same pressure not to challenge low tax ideas as it did under Blair/Brown.
Yes political parties are still needed. No sane or coherent politics is conceivable without them. The trouble is that currently with them we don't get that. We don't even get an adult level of political debate.
What I find out of joint in this article is the strong demand for the reinvention of parties and their internal democracy at a moment when the Labour Party is supposed to be in the middle of a Policy Review which is being run by a member of Compass. Why is Compass not using its resources to animate that review. It is almost unbelievable how dull and how inactive some major policy areas (like education) are. Why is Compass not taking this on board?
It is remarkable that "In the middle of a horse meat and a gas price/profit scandal no leading politician is saying that affordable heating and healthy eating might be incompatible with the profit motive". I am new to Compass and have not read all its materials but from what I have read so far I don't know where this challenge is made in Compass's materials. I don't remember it being made in Plan B. Have I missed something?
on 01 March 2013, 8:36:37 PM
on 01 March 2013, 6:46:51 PM
The Conservatives are blatantly working to promote the interests of their friends, the top few percent in terms of wealth and act exclusively on their behalf. While they are happy to dole out subsidies to the rich in the form of tax cuts and working tax credits (which are effectively huge subsidies to exploitative employers), they are prepared to allow the rest of the population to sink or swim on their own as wages are forced down and essential benefits and public services are cut savagely.
The Liberal Democrats are concerned only with their own personal ambition and holding on to their positions in government. They have clearly demonstrated that they are totally unprincipled, prepared to abandon any inconvenient pre-election promises as it suits them and vote through any extremist and self-interested policies the Conservatives can come up with. The main reason why they won in Eastleigh is because they saturated the constituency with their campaign workers and dominated the local campaign.
The Labour Party seems to be afraid of its own shadow and scared to attack the government directly. In 2010 they remained silent for months as the coalition government sold the public the lie that the financial crisis was caused by excessive public sector spending rather than the truth that it was caused by a massive failure of the private sector. This story has become an established fact in many people's minds and is now very difficult for Labour to argue against. They still don't seem to be prepared to argue that there are alternatives to the current obsession with austerity and public spending cuts. Whoever they want to govern for, they don't seem to be able to put their case forward.
UKIP is attracting support as a party that seems to be above the normal politics, which of course it isn't. UKIP politicians know that they can make any promises they like because they won't have to implement them - just like the Liberal Democrats before 2010. They say whatever they think a given audience wants to hear. They are totally hypocritical, demanding that the UK should leave the EU while their leader makes his living as an MEP. Like other politicians, they are only interested in furthering their own personal ambitions.
on 01 March 2013, 5:36:58 PM
on 01 March 2013, 5:16:34 PM
on 01 March 2013, 4:03:56 PM
(a) Persuading the Lib Dems that they should use their bargaining power within the coalition to secure progressive change where this can command a parliamentary majority (with Labour and other opposition parties).
(b) Making sure that the parliamentary arithmetic is as favourable as we can make it towards securing such a parliamentary majority.
I don't see how any result could have affected (a) but a Tory (or UKIP) victory would have been a setback as regards (b).
Meanwhile it really is time that Labour started making constructive moves to work with the Lib Dems to see where we can make progress as per (a). Such moves may fail, but there is no chance of success unless Labour tries,
and I believe that any attempt will resonate positively with the electorate. It would certainly lead to my rejoining the party.
Top priority should go to reinvigorating local government. Good public services, especially sustainable transport, are the foundation for a prosperous and sustainable society, as they know in countries like Switzerland. Despite unacceptable fare rises the Tories have been quite good on recognising the importance of the rail network, but have attacked our local buses so badly that the gulf in standard of service between routes with and without rail links is reach levels not seen since we got rid of horse drawn buses.
on 01 March 2013, 4:01:08 PM
Last of all, we have a coalition government - pluralism on display, surely?
The question is not one of plurality or not. It is a question of contradiction and resolution - which rootings, combined or divided, provide the right solutions for the situation at hand? In other words, it's not about plurality and coalitions, it's about the right policies - the right plurality, if necessary at all, comes after this, not before.
All very well to have a god at the parties, but Compass has been banging the same drum for two years, to little avail or outcome.
This statement might as well have simply been "I'm unhappy - it's not looking how I wanted it to".
Leave a comment