Lib Dems

[Joseph K]

The fact that Starmer is doing 'less well' than Corbyn doesn't mean that Corbyn did well. Or that given time, support and no 'smearing', 'negative briefing' &c, he would have won an election on the strength of his policies.

Where do you get this insight of a hypothetical situation from, FF? And I beg to differ on Corbyn not doing well - I think, in 2017, certainly, given the forces against Corbyn - the whole Establishment, including of course some of his own party, against him - to achieve the largest swing in the vote share since Attlee most certainly is 'doing well'. I know, I too cannot see into the hypothetical of all things being equal etc.

But seriously, check out how well all the social-democratic Scandinavian countries do on the freedom of their press: https://rsf.org/en/ranking

.. so y'know, I do wonder if Corbyn had had a more congenial media environment how he'd have done - considering he did very well with all the odds stacked against him. And also, bearing in mind that, as I've pointed out, British people are not 'just more' right-wing than other countries.

Irritating though it may be, it takes a Blair to win elections - the one thing Chris Mullin did approve of, because he (Mullin) was a politician.

'Irritating'. Hmm. I'm sure the Iraqis can think of somewhat stronger words to describe Blair.

[french frank]

Where do you get this insight of a hypothetical situation from, FF? And I beg to differ on Corbyn not doing well - I think, in 2017, certainly, given the forces against Corbyn - the whole Establishment, including of course some of his own party, against him - to achieve the largest swing in the vote share since Attlee most certainly is 'doing well'. I know, I too cannot see into the hypothetical of all things being equal etc.

No insight, no hypothesis. I merely stated that A doesn't necessarily mean B. For politicians - practising politicians - 'doing well' means winning. It means gaining the chance to put your policies, or some of them, into action. I think it also requires identifying the right questions and supplying the right answers for the moment in time.

Attlee won, if I remember correctly, and Corbyn did pretty well the first time, and pretty badly the second. Swing depends on context. If you do disastrously but recover strongly you'll achieve a large swing. But you still only end up where you started.

But seriously, check out how well all the social-democratic Scandinavian countries do on the freedom of their press: https://rsf.org/en/ranking

Social democracy? - now you're talking!!! Just located my Sept 1981 copy of the draft constitution of the SDP - if anyone wants it!

.. so y'know, I do wonder if Corbyn had had a more congenial media environment how he'd have done - considering he did very well with all the odds stacked against him. And also, bearing in mind that, as I've pointed out, British people are not 'just more' right-wing than other countries.

I agree he had a lot to contend with, and as I've said before, I would not have been grieved if he'd won the election(s). But he didn't for reasons nothing to do with me. Time to move on and fight today's battles.

'Irritating'. Hmm. I'm sure the Iraqis can think of somewhat stronger words to describe Blair.

Non sequitur. I'm sure you can think of stronger words too. But history will weigh the pluses as well as the minuses of his administration, I imagine.

[Joseph K]

Social democracy? - now you're talking!!! Just located my Sept 1981 copy of the draft constitution of the SDP - if anyone wants it!

Yes - and while I'm sure the SDP probably look positively Corbynite by today's standards, back in the early 80s I guess the only thing they achieved - much like, to bring this thread full circle back to its original topic, the modern-day Lib Dems - was to split the progressive vote and let the Tories in.

[Richard Barrett]

it takes a Blair to win elections

... or an Attlee, or a Wilson, etc., depending on circumstances. I don't think such inductive arguments have much relevance in a changing world.

[LMcD]

I've always followed my granny's advice as to the 3 three things I should never get involved in or indeed concern myself in any way: sex, politics and lacrosse tactics. Two other things that haven't changed for me in the last 50 years are my unconditional love of 90% of Mozart's music and my unqualified distrust (to put it mildly) of 90% of politicians. If my children have learned anything from me, it's that life is far too important to be entrusted to them. The fact that this thread has come full circle does not reflect on any of the contributors but merely proves that, as somebody - Supermac, was it? - once said, 'all political careers end in failure', which should hardly come as a surprise seeing as all politicians fail to a greater or lesser extent to achieve their own ambitions or fulfil their promises.
One thing that HAS changed this year is that I've finally joined the League of Ex-Voters!

[Richard Barrett]

I've always followed my granny's advice as to the 3 three things I should never get involved in or indeed concern myself in any way: sex, politics and lacrosse tactics.

What an exciting life you must have had.

[LMcD]

What an exciting life you must have had.

I'll say! Being ticked off - nicely in both cases - by Carol Vorderman and Martin Bell (the journalist, not the skier) remain among my more treasured memories. I also enjoyed participating in three broadcasts hosted by the ever-genial Ned Sherrin who, after the final, saved time - he had to rush off to some showbiz party - by giving 2 of us a handshake at the same time.

[french frank]

... or an Attlee, or a Wilson, etc., depending on circumstances. I don't think such inductive arguments have much relevance in a changing world.

I didn't suggest it was relevant to anything. (Or that Blair himself was 'irritating' for that matter!). I meant it was irritating that - in recent times - a Labour leader of Blair's stripe could win three elections when others couldn't. It's absolutely to do with a changing world: Cometh the hour, cometh the man.

[gurnemanz]

I will certainly never not vote. I do not espouse any ideology, religious or political, and tend rather simplistically to vote for the candidate most likely to defeat the Tory. Where I have lived this has always been Lib/Lib/Dem, so I have never actually been represented by anyone I voted for. My only small concession to party political activism was a consequence of Brexit fury when a similarly furious LibDem canvasser knocked at my door and I ended up doing a shift as a polling station teller for them at the election after referendum. A worthwhile experience but one I don't need to repeat.

[french frank]

Yes - and while I'm sure the SDP probably look positively Corbynite by today's standards, back in the early 80s I guess the only thing they achieved - much like, to bring this thread full circle back to its original topic, the modern-day Lib Dems - was to split the progressive vote and let the Tories in.

I think the SDP's principles were more 'progressive' than the Liberals' (and than the Lib Dems'), but you seem to see politics in Manichaean terms of black and white: Progressives v Tories. What if neither meets the wishes of the electorate at any particular time? Just as Bercow - who I remember standing for Bristol South as the 'rabid rightwinger' he admits to having been - feels the party has moved away from him, so the SDP leaders felt the same way about Labour. How could they stand on a 'Brexit' ticket that they vehemently disagreed with? Parties swing left and right and sometimes they go too far. What the SDP did was answer the political demands of the electorate at the time. It was FPTP that caused the 'third party' to founder. It should be a lesson for party leaders too.

Had to add this:

I will certainly never not vote. I do not espouse any ideology, religious or political, and tend rather simplistically to vote for the candidate most likely to defeat the Tory. Where I have lived this has always been Lib/Lib/Dem, so I have never actually been represented by anyone I voted for. My only small concession to party political activism was a consequence of Brexit fury when a similarly furious LibDem canvasser knocked at my door and I ended up doing a shift as a polling station teller for them at the election after referendum. A worthwhile experience but one I don't need to repeat.

[Richard Barrett]

Parties swing left and right and sometimes they go too far.

You're taking this centrist thing to self-parodic lengths! I mean really, that's just as simplistic as the position you (mistakenly I think) characterise Joseph as taking. We're faced with a whole complex of crises and social problems, from racism, sexism and wealth inequality to the destruction of the planet as a viable habitat through war, disease and environmental degradation, and there is something all of these issues have in common: they are all aided and exacerbated (and some of them indeed have been caused) by the illusion of unlimited "growth" that's built into the capitalist way of doing things. So the question for me is: how is it possible to build the consciousness and the large scale movements that might, if it's not too late by then, address these issues in a fundamental way. I think we're getting to the point where Rosa Luxembourg's "socialism or barbarism" is a choice that's staring us in the face, and that tinkering around the edges isn't a solution.

[french frank]

You're taking this centrist thing to self-parodic lengths! I mean really, that's just as simplistic as the position you (mistakenly I think) characterise Joseph as taking.

I thought I was stating a fact: that parties do change their stance. In practice. As in the Heath Party turning into the Brexit party. Socialists within the Labour party may have thought of the party as being unswervingly socialist, but things look different to those who actually have to 'govern'.

We're faced with a whole complex of crises and social problems, from racism, sexism and wealth inequality to the destruction of the planet as a viable habitat through war, disease and environmental degradation, and there is something all of these issues have in common: they are all aided and exacerbated (and some of them indeed have been caused) by the illusion of unlimited "growth" that's built into the capitalist way of doing things. So the question for me is: how is it possible to build the consciousness and the large scale movements that might, if it's not too late by then, address these issues in a fundamental way. I think we're getting to the point where Rosa Luxembourg's "socialism or barbarism" is a choice that's staring us in the face, and that tinkering around the edges isn't a solution.

You may be right. But if so, the odds seem to be on barbarism - speaking from an entirely dispassionate point of view, not stating a preference. Not sure in what way I mis-characterised JK's view. Perhaps he'll explain.

NB to gurney - you got off lightly: I've known people who took your view being cajoled into standing for the council by the Liberals.

[Richard Barrett]

Socialists within the Labour party may have thought of the party as being unswervingly socialist

No, I don't think any of them have ever thought that. Socialists within the Labour party would generally be of the opinion that it's potentially the most fruitful environment among the "major" parties for socialist ideas to be taken seriously and incorporated into policy, given its origins and history. This is always a risky position to take, of course - socialists in Germany haven't taken the same approach to the SPD but instead formed a socialist party outside it, but that again is the result of differences between German and British history to a crucial extent. The left-right gap between Labour party grassroots membership and the upper reaches of the party hierarchy has always been there. It was brought into particular relief during the Corbyn years, of course, which have just served to make more clear than before the entrenchment of (to use a crude shorthand) "Blairite" attitudes in the power-structure of the party, comparably to the way "Clintonite" attitudes are entrenched in the DNC in the US.

[Andrew]

The fact that this thread has come full circle does not reflect on any of the contributors but merely proves that, as somebody - Supermac, was it? - once said, 'all political careers end in failure':

How true! Another of his epic quotes was in answer to what affected his Government's policies: "Events, dear heart, events!" was his reply. Given the monumental happenings over the last few years, this quote seems particularly prophetic!

[french frank]

You pick up a point which I'd been thinking about over lunch , particularly when you say:

socialists in Germany haven't taken the same approach to the SPD but instead formed a socialist party outside it

which seemed (from the point of view of a non-socialist) exactly what JK had against the SDP - 'splitting the progressive vote and letting the Tories in', as if the 'progressive vote' was monolithic and, in the 1983 election, meant Foot's Labour Party and the longest suicide note in history. That seemed to be either Progressive or Tory, which is what I meant by 'Manichaean'.

At that point, if not before, it seems to me that the radical (in the etymological sense) policy to embrace was reform of the electoral system whereby 43% of the vote would never be enough for a landslide victory for the Tories. But Labour's heart has never been in it, and Cameron has now messed up in giving the impression that in order to change the voting system you first have to ask the voters how they want to vote: Change or No Change, Yes or No - and First Past the Post wins.

What are the chances of a) getting a socialist Labour Party and at the same time b) that window of opportunity where Labour gets an outright win? And c) maintaining a semblance of democracy and keeping a socialist government in power long enough to prove its worth?

Changing the voting system would be a radical change, but a radish too far for Labour.

The left-right gap between Labour party grassroots membership and the upper reaches of the party hierarchy has always been there. It was brought into particular relief during the Corbyn years, of course, which have just served to make more clear than before the entrenchment of (to use a crude shorthand) "Blairite" attitudes in the power-structure of the party, comparably to the way "Clintonite" attitudes are entrenched in the DNC in the US.

I think that's correct, but there's still the wild card of the voting public. It seems to me that it poses the problem I've mentioned: How do you keep a socialist government in power for any significant time? Even Attlee, who most people would have considered a 'successful' politician, only managed one term and - crucially - Labour polled more votes (1951) than the Tories and still lost. So one thing is what you aim to achieve, the second is how you plan to achieve it. The progressive vote doesn't have to be corralled into voting for the same political party.