DEM not gonna CON dis NATION: Rolling UK politics in the short-lived post-Murdoch era

I can forgive people for voting Labour. I don't want to live in a country where UKIP voters also live. Is there somewhere I can defect to or do I have to try and massacre 10,000 people now? Bother.

i was gonna include Labour and when i tried to write "but" i thought "i can't really find an excuse for voting Labour in 2013" but maybe old people who are confused idk

Well put the other 35k down to that i guess, and all the others as well

nah dude, not having that.

am i trying to sentimentally separate the Labour party from the others? perhaps. it's not a good look for somebody who rejects the sham of parliamentary democracy as is, i agree. but somewhere within the Labour party as historical project or myth or ghost is the idea of a politics that aspires to the good of all, or the good of the majority. that simply isn't true of the other parties in the list.

it's still possible, misguidedly, to vote for Labour because you think the country or the world or your town should treat people better, more equally. it's impossible logically to vote for the other parties in that spirit - they are exclusionary by history, instinct and policy. they believe in a fundamental way in a better world for some, the deserving, and punishment or control for the damned.

IRL that distinction is dead, agreed. the possibility of it existing in incurious minds is not quite dead yet tho i think.

The seat has never been Labour and never was going to be Labour this time round, they're pretty much an irrelevance in that constituency and they knew it. My guess is:

- This is as close to a safe LibDem seat as you get, and/or they must have campaigned exceptionally well at local level.

- The splintering of the right-wing vote is probably good news for Labour in the longer run (although they're vulnerable to UKIP as well).

- This result is terrible for Cameron on just about every conceivable level.

I dont wanna lol but

lol with ya baby, no more...

(soz)

NV you captured my sentiments re. Labour exactly. I've been immersed in the 1930s this week, and I realised that despite Bliar and everything that has transpired, I still have an emotional connection to the Labour movement as-was. I haven't voted Labour in a while, but I'd still rather see Labour, as hopelessly confused as they are, in charge than the 'my home is my castle' brigades represented by the Right.

Idk who I'd have voted for if I lived in Eastleigh. It's v. depressing.

Sorry that was banal. But when you're reading about the folks marching from Glasgow to London in clogs to fight against benefit cuts, and the wide-eyed revolutionary fervour of those inter-war socialists, you remember what socialism was supposed to achieve. Did achieve, to a great extent, in it's tempered, British incarnation. We are losing it, and the country seems to be full of savage slugs, looking askance at anyone less fortunate than themselves, when they can tear their eyes away from Downton or whatevs. Arguments that were won then (we should not treat the poor like shit, regardless of whether they deserve it; unemployed and sick people are citizens, not mendicants) are being lost now.

I'm still a member of the Labour party because i can't be bothered to work out how to leave. Locally they have some decent people who deserve the votes and financial support they get but they're largely indefensible at a national level. Might just cancel my direct debit and let them work out the rest.

i guess i'd say those arguments were never "won", there was just a historical moment when the working class had sufficient influence within the Labour party to make the 1945 government carry out some socialist policies. that working class doesn't exist in the same strength any more and has been pushed to the near-voiceless margins of the modern Labour party. we have a workforce that doesn't recognise itself as working class no matter how exploited it may be. we have the appearance of a general material prosperity formed from cheap imports and cheap credit. the problems of 2013 aren't the problems of 1945. we can't unify people behind outdated solutions to obsolete problems. Capitalism in its consumerist phase has everything to gain by this social isolation, solipsism, alienation. the politics of resistance is faced with the real prospect that for a majority of people this is as good as it gets - no matter how bad that may be in future.

i'm out of answers. let them run the ship into the rocks if that's what the passengers want.

in the end what democracy amounted to was allowing a majority of people to consent to hand themselves and everybody else over to the interests of the plutocrats

I still have an emotional connection to the Labour movement as-was. I haven't voted Labour in a while, but I'd still rather see Labour, as hopelessly confused as they are, in charge than the 'my home is my castle' brigades represented by the Right.

I agree with every word of that. So I end up holding my nose and voting Labour because what the fuck else am I supposed to do :(

cut the cord, recognise that the game is elsewhere and that voting for them is encouraging what they've become. or pragmatically, vote against the other vermin in whatever way is likely to prove most effective.

the greens seem like nice people?

Greens don't even stand in my constituency. Last two elections had Tory, LD, Lab, SNP & UKIP - no Greens, no independents, no old skool Socialists, no BNP.

The Greens want more homeopathy in the NHS. I'd rather have actual drugs.

paying seven pounds-odd prescription charge for a little phial of water seems a bit much

Worth pointing out that as the country is in a state of extreme flux right now and Labour will need to redefine itself yet again according to what shape of Britain emerges, or to shape it themselves obviously. No one really knows what that will be yet, and no one within the party looks more ridiculous than the disgruntled and vocal Blairite throwbacks.

I don't see much of an appetite for that on their front bench, and if they somehow scrape through the next election they won't be redefining anything for another few years.

- The splintering of the right-wing vote is probably good news for Labour in the longer run (although they're vulnerable to UKIP as well).

i don't think it's going to result in a splintering in the long run. i think most tory voters are of the vote "most right wing candidate electable" school and would happily vote ukip as soon as they win their first mp. in the longer run the party itself is going to have to move right and overwhelm/subsume ukip. that will be lol to watch.

great manufacturing data this morning by the way.

Blame the Chinese.

Bad weather at the end of January and a larger than expected disruption caused by the Chinese New Year holiday on global trade flows saw new orders fall for a second successive month, Markit said.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/9902000/UK-manufacturing-shrinks-unexpectedly-in-February.html

if they somehow scrape through the next election they won't be redefining anything for another few years.

They might not have a choice, for all sorts of reasons.

The Greens want more homeopathy in the NHS. I'd rather have actual drugs.

― Troughton-masked Replicant (aldo)

I've joined the Green party, but haven't made up my mind how much I want to get involved. Sections of the party are clearly hard-of-thinking (but nice, yes). Perhaps I will crusade for evidence-based policy making. Someone should.

Theyre still not goin to redefine anything according to any coherent and sustainable ideals. I know that nobody else is either, i know that no such ideals exist in most likelihood, just dont understand the fetishisation of labour tbh, some ppl said some stuff in the thirties, tried it for a while in the seventies, didnt work out, lyfe

Worst fetish ever.

paying seven pounds-odd prescription charge for a little rustic phial of water seems a bit much

― a phenomenological description of The Eagles (Noodle Vague), Friday, 1 March 2013 10:57 (27 minutes ago)

fixxxxed

green party are fucking useless though, and believe me I've tried with them. where next?

― c'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas le beurre (imago), Monday, 25 February 2013 15:22 (4 days ago)

yeah this again really

mind you homeopathy isn't the real enemy folks

It's not fetishisation, it's the fact that those ideals do exist, even if only in our hearts, and not on the Lab front benches.

What do you, when you have an ideal? Let go of it and embrace cynicism? I'm continually trying to learn & evolve, but the g-d- ideals get more radical the more I know about how fucked the world is.

isn't the problem that socialism needs everyone to actively work at it whereas capitalism only requires passive complaisance?

and y'know, we're collectively a bit lazy

I dont really have any ideals i'd expect to see on the front bench of a govt in the uk.

Our lot are doing a decent job, but then i'm a good deal more centre-right than this thread/ilx (and a good deal left of the political majority here)

and yr professed ideals arent much to do with labour 2013 aiui, im not claiming to know what % of mp's share them or what party comes close, but it's a long way from govt numbers, right?

Dunno if I'm idealistic about full blown state must own all this shit socialism but I think it might be possible to form a popular electable party that doesn't treat poor and disabled people as shit you can't scrape of your shoes. Maybe one that recognises that if the state has a role in welfare, health, defence, education, etc. then it should maybe have properly paid qualified people ensuring it fulfils that role without them having to test themselves against a free market/profit-oriented model that says "we can do all of that stuff cheaper and better apart from all the unprofitable difficult stuff we're going to chop at the earliest opportunity!"

Im not disagreeing with your ideals, im just saying that yes, that's probably a little idealistic

Had a brief moment of horror when the Lib Dems shoved their rag through the door yesterday (with apologies for any chloroform-related mental images this produces) with a headline screaming "Only the LDs can beat the Tories here!" and I mentally ran through my futile options before a minute of "oh god oh god there is nobody to vote for, nobody left who isn't an utter cunt"

then I drank some cider and went about my evening

onimo otm.

I'm not a red-blooded Socialist Worker toting socialist, but I fundamentally believe in not treating people like shit, and am not willing to release anyone still claiming allegiance to the left, however weak, from that ideal. I do happen to think that a govt run welfare state and national health service are the best way to achieve that, & unbridled capitalism is desperately harmful, but my main beef w/ the right is that they don't deal in compassion.

well yeah, but careerist party politics rarely deals in compassion

my solution would be a parliament of 500 randomly-chosen individuals from the electoral register, with the option to turn it down (just roll the computerised dice again!)

^^^this is the only fair and scrupulous way to do it and it'd be a damn, damn sight better than what we have now

I get facepalmy when, of all the debates they could engage with easily and win popular support, Labour decide they're going to focus on 'concern' about immigration. That and Miliband weighing in on Hilary fucking Mantel of all things - does he not participate in smart-people conversations at any point in his day? Because immigration is the ultimate subject in dumb-person conversation (or possibly penultimate, there's always the royals).

@imago, nope, it doesn't, but leftwing voters can demand a pretence at compassion, so we at least get a chance of the NHS not being sold for parts.

@suzy Yeah it seems dumb. But then I thought Lego Friends was insultingly stupid misogynistic crap, and it's boosted sales by 25%.

That and Miliband weighing in on Hilary fucking Mantel of all things - does he not participate in smart-people conversations at any point in his day?

i don't think he, or indeed cameron, is entirely to blame for the press splashing with recreational outrage like that. i mean that was the week cameron was in india, right, and presumably saying things of substance in speeches (repulsive things, but things worth covering nonetheless).

Because immigration is the ultimate subject in dumb-person conversation (or possibly penultimate, there's always the royals).

immigration is not a stupid topic per se, too (although i don't doubt he's going to say sth stupid). it's a lot more important than the early-90s-vintage culture wars twitter froth over the fucking gcse history curriculum, for example.

...Ray Hall, Beer, Baccy and Crumpet party - 235
Kevin Milburn, Christian Party "Proclaiming Christ's Lordship" - 163
Howling "Laud" Hope, Monster Raving Loony William Hill party - 136
Jim Duggan, Peace party - 128
David Bishop, Elvis Loves Pets party - 72
Michael Walters, English Democrats "Putting England First!" - 70...

hahahaha, only 90s kids will like this status, etc.

The sight of Tories squirming, ye cannae whack it but a horrible constituency nonetheless, I'm sure they are nice people individually but politically vile

it might be possible to form a popular electable party that doesn't treat poor and disabled people as shit you can't scrape of your shoes. Maybe one that recognises that if the state has a role in welfare, health, defence, education, etc. then it should maybe have properly paid qualified people ensuring it fulfils that role without them having to test themselves against a free market/profit-oriented model that says "we can do all of that stuff cheaper and better

I fundamentally believe in not treating people like shit, and am not willing to release anyone still claiming allegiance to the left, however weak, from that ideal. I do happen to think that a govt run welfare state and national health service are the best way to achieve that, & unbridled capitalism is desperately harmful

i don't think you'll get even half of this under any conceivable government thrown up under our existing political system now.

i don't have a dogmatic version of Marxism to peddle here, but i think it's important to realise that even a (not gonna happen) return to the economic and social climate of the 1960s/70s means we are inevitably fucked as a society, as a civilization, as a species.

I'm not calling for a return to the 60s/70s. My actual view is that we need to radically rethink the shape of democracy, dismantle pretty much everything, and urgently explore ideas such as prosperity without growth, if we are to stand a chance of survival. I don't think this will happen, and I don't think we will survive, tbh. But you can't put that kind of belief into yr everyday practice b/c the logical next step actually is a shooting spree.

hey, there's lots of other possible steps. even resignation isn't the only option. but i can't see "us" reasoning our way to safety en masse.

I dont understand yr meaning of 'survival' here

I'm struggling a bit with "prosperity without growth" myself.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/jan/23/properity-without-growth-tim-jackson

isn't that just malthusianism?

Aargh, "what's not to like" in the second paragraph. The rest of it appears to be the usual back to barter stuff.