The Dictatorship of the Etonariat

[Richard Barrett]

I suspect that very few people have such a concept in mind. Also, relatively few people attend conferences, and many of the wider electorate are no doubt sceptical about the outcomes. You could define democracy in terms of process, but the definition could still be challenged if it didn’t fit with most people’s preconceptions.

But: everyone is entitled to become a member (for example) of the Labour party, which involves not just voting for party leader and NEC members, but also voting on conference representatives and on the choice of conference resolutions at branch level, so the "few people" who attend the conference are there to carry out the democratically made decisions of their branch, and party policy is bound by conference. This is more democracy than you get by voting every few years. (I don't know how other political parties involve their membership directly in policy decisions). Those in the "wider electorate" who might be sceptical about how these things are done isn't going to change anything by sitting on the sidelines getting grumpy and cynical.

[muzzer]

Personally, I accept all the criticisms of the Lib Dems. They should never, stuck in a conference rooms with the Tories at 3am, have plumped for a PR referendum instead of abolishing tuition fees. V poor deal making skills. And even worse judgment. But now they are the only clearly anti Brexit party, so they get my vote. Historically of course “a liberal vote is a wasted vote”. But the middle is hollowed out. Tory and Labour are peddling rampant populism and are both unrecognisable compared to 10 years ago. My view is that labour can’t govern and that the Tories can’t serve (other than themselves). Jo Swinson needs a bit of media training but she’s a better bet than the loony extremes.

[Bryn]

Personally, I accept all the criticisms of the Lib Dems. They should never, stuck in a conference rooms with the Tories at 3am, have plumped for a PR referendum instead of abolishing tuition fees. V poor deal making skills. And even worse judgment. But now they are the only clearly anti Brexit party, so they get my vote. Historically of course “a liberal vote is a wasted vote”. But the middle is hollowed out. Tory and Labour are peddling rampant populism and are both unrecognisable compared to 10 years ago. My view is that labour can’t govern and that the Tories can’t serve (other than themselves). Jo Swinson needs a bit of media training but she’s a better bet than the loony extremes.

Not sure how I will vote in the forthcoming General Election. The current MP was a Tory with a distinctly homophobic parliamentary voting history. He recently jumped ship and was allowed into the LibDems, to some consternation. I have no idea whether he intends to contest the seat. He has very little chance of retaining it under his new colours. The local Labour Party has a disgraceful history of expelling old school anti-Blairites. The Greens are nowhere in the ranking here.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Labour being "unrecognisable compared to 10 years ago" could, of course, be regarded as a point in its favour.

[Bryn]

Labour being "unrecognisable compared to 10 years ago" could, of course, be regarded as a point in its favour.

"could"? Must, surely?

[teamsaint]

Brexit aside, ( and remembering that most Labour MPs and members are remainers and they are committed to a referendum) I really wish somebody could explain to me what it was in the last manifesto or current policy, that amounts to the hard left/ marxism/ populism of which the party is so regularly accused.

A recent look at the 2017 manifesto reinforced my view of their policy as being broadly mainstream social democatic.

Th discourse in public life in this country has veered , apparently unnoticed, a long way to the right in , as Ferney suggests, 10 years, as “ Fracker” Swinson demonstrates.

[muzzer]

Well, there I fear we must agree to differ. Jeremy Corbyn is an excellent MP, but the thought of him as PM fills me with horror. Likewise John McDonnell anywhere near the levers of the economy. I think we need to look beyond our borders at how we can stave off the brutal protectionism of Trump and the old style of Putin. Overall, I think that means strengthening our ties with the EU. I realise it’s not an easy choice. I pray in aid the sweep of history, Britain’s real, limited, influence, and human nature.

[Joseph K]

Well, there I fear we must agree to differ. Jeremy Corbyn is an excellent MP, but the thought of him as PM fills me with horror. Likewise John McDonnell anywhere near the levers of the economy.

Why?

[Bryn]

Why?

Indeed. Far, far preferable to Sajid Javid, surely?

[muzzer]

A church treasurer with an abacus would be preferable to Javid. No offence to anyone performing that role. McDonnell or any of his ilk would be a disaster simply because capital would flee the country. You can’t legislate for that sort of stuff. It just happens. Marx vs reality. Sorry.

[Joseph K]

A church treasurer with an abacus would be preferable to Javid. No offence to anyone performing that role. McDonnell or any of his ilk would be a disaster simply because capital would flee the country.

Hasn't that already happened - all the rich people's money is in offshore tax havens?

You can’t legislate for that sort of stuff. It just happens. Marx vs reality. Sorry.

Yeah right, 'there is no alternative'. It's curious that you should invoke Marx, when Corbyn/McDonnell's ideas are more Keynesian. My guess is, in the event of Labour coming to power, the government would have to pick up the pieces in terms of investment etc. I don't see Swinson, who has voted more in favour of Tory policy than many Tories, as offering anything new. What we need is a Green New Deal, ideally one that is transnational across Europe (DiEM25) and America (Bernie Sanders?) to lead the world in the right direction, to entrench socialism at least for the time-being so society and civilisation has some semblance of a chance of survival.

[Bella Kemp]

We need capitalism to make the money and socialism to ensure that it is distributed fairly. Governments that offer pure socialism have always failed, alas - and, ironically, made the very people they sought to help worse off. There was nothing ever wrong with Labour's aspirations in their 2017 manifesto - it is a very attractive document - it's just that, as the voters realised, the ideas could never be brought into fruition. Pure capitalism, as our increasingly right-wing Tory party are also offering, is equally hideous. Politics needs to find its centre and its balance again. Despite what our media tells us, we have many fine MPs: it's a pity that their voices are being drowned by the cliques who have seized power in the Tory and Labour parties.

[Joseph K]

We need capitalism to make the money and socialism to ensure that it is distributed fairly.

This makes no sense. In any case, what we see in capitalism now is socialism for the rich - bankers being bailed out to the tune of trillions, corporations avoiding tax, profiting from government funding etc. while many of the most vulnerable suffer the effects of austerity i.e. capitalism. Capitalism for the poor, socialism for the rich!

Governments that offer pure socialism have always failed, alas - and, ironically, made the very people they sought to help worse off. There was nothing ever wrong with Labour's aspirations in their 2017 manifesto - it is a very attractive document - it's just that, as the voters realised, the ideas could never be brought into fruition. Pure capitalism, as our increasingly right-wing Tory party are also offering, is equally hideous. Politics needs to find its centre and its balance again. Despite what our media tells us, we have many fine MPs: it's a pity that their voices are being drowned by the cliques who have seized power in the Tory and Labour parties.

No government has ever offered 'pure socialism', and Stalinist countries usually don't make the very people they wish to help worse off materially maybe, but there is no doubt that the hideous authoritarianism and dictatorship are not what communism meant to people originally in the nineteenth century.

The Labour 2017 manifesto was ambitious indeed. What exactly are you suggesting by politics find its centre? Ed Miliband offered austerity-lite and look how successful he was was! What is a 'centre' anyway? Politics often shifts this way and that - what Corbyn is proposing only seems radical in light of the shift to the right that has taken place since Thatcher (and just before her, too). There was no question of returning to Blairism after the 2008 crash.

As I've mentioned here before, capitalism is devouring the planet, inducing global warming that will causes various crises on a level that will make Brexit look like a twee joke.

[Serial_Apologist]

Hasn't that already happened - all the rich people's money is in offshore tax havens?




Yeah right, 'there is no alternative'. It's curious that you should invoke Marx, when Corbyn/McDonnell's ideas are more Keynesian. My guess is, in the event of Labour coming to power, the government would have to pick up the pieces in terms of investment etc. I don't see Swinson, who has voted more in favour of Tory policy than many Tories, as offering anything new. What we need is a Green New Deal, ideally one that is transnational across Europe (DiEM25) and America (Bernie Sanders?) to lead the world in the right direction, to entrench socialism at least for the time-being so society and civilisation has some semblance of a chance of survival.

Couldn't have put it better myself. And your #508.

[teamsaint]

Couldn't have put it better myself. And your #508.

And what is more, it is important to remember something that politicians often like to avoid mentioning, which is that in modem mixed economies , relationships between the private and public sectors are very complex, opaque, and often not at all what they seem.