---

by Byron
They ain't no freaking liberals! Hard to pin down. You'll see them called right-wing a lot, but they ain't. They're the Left's dark side. A former socialist party, they support the "third way" (using private capital to run state-owned welfare services) and, due to their socialist "state is the cure" roots, their attitude to civil liberties makes the Patriot Act look downright moderate. Lean towards a neo-liberal economic policy.

---

Not sure I'd agree with Nu Labour signing up to 'State Is The Cure'. Unfortunately. Foundation Hospitals and the current Education White Paper, never mind Academy Schools, are all back door privatisation. They all take control of Health and Education out of the hands of the state and place it in the hands of a wealthy few.

Civil Liberties has historically been at the heart of the Labour movement as well, with only Internment (locking up suspected Irish Terrorists without trial) in the Seventies and the post Sept 11th madness to blacken our rep.

I really do think we have to see the current government as an aberration in Labour history, almost as if the Social Democrats (SDP, right wing splinter party from Labour when they felt Labour was too left wing) had come pack and wiped out all opposition in the party. Tony Blair rewriting the party constition was his way of saying 'I'm the boss, from now on you all do as I tell you', and the sense of impotence that came with 18 years of not forming a government meant that party all shouted at once 'how high?' And still are, though with large numbers of MPs and councillors seeing that re-election for their own seats is increasingly unlikely some are starting to turn. Only too slowly.

The Nu Labour program was always about remodelling the Labour Party in Tony's image. But underneath that image is a set of politics at odds with the Labour movement. It is anti-liberal, it is actually anti-state, pro-privatisation, pro-free market. Which is why it's not hard for the Tories to claim they are the natural successors to Tony Blair. Though why anyone would want to be that I have no idea.

---

by Jayjay
(quotes)
I really do think we have to see the current government as an aberration in Labour history …

---

I would love to agree with this analysis, I really would. But I don't.

Socialism's first principal, forcibly seizing private capital for the common good, is inherently authoritarian, and so is all that flows from it.

Labour's take 'em or leave 'em attitude to civil liberties has been there from the start, restrained only by a dwindling band of Liberal defectors. Foreshadowing Jack Straw, Labour abolished unanimous jury verdicts in 1968 to save money, and Blair's government was tearing up liberties long before the September 11 atrocity. (Terrorism Act 2000, Mode of Trial Bill, retaining innocent people's DNA.) How does Blair justify this? The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Utilitarianism. Classic Left wing thinking.

And Labour go along with it. The big rebellions in the PLP have been over the free market; civil liberties rarely attract more than 40 hard-core rebels.

Blair might have dumped socialism, but new Labour thinking is a warped evolution of it. Student debt, yes, but that's to get 50% of the population a degree -- equality of outcome if ever I saw it. He's trying to harness private capital towards socialist ends.

New Labour's happy to embrace big business, and might have abandoned traditional redistribution of wealth, but everything about them can be traced back to party's socialist roots. They're the Left's dark side.

---

by Jayjay
While I have a lot in common with the Lib Dems on Civil Liberties ... they do not have the commitment to supporting those who through bad luck or birth find themselves in poverty and with little hope for escape.

---

But meritocracy (equal opportunity for everyone reagardless of background) is a fundamental Liberal belief.

---

For all its ills, lets not forget this government did bring in the Minimum wage, massively reduce unemployment, improve the standard of income support given to the unemployed, low paid, long term sick and pensioners. Could they have done more? Sure. But they've done more than the other two parties have been willing to support.

---

Full employment is an illusion: unemployment is cut through figure massaging, getting people on useless "training schemes" and unecessay degrees. Labour have cut a range of welfare provisions, and are currently waging war on incapacity benefit, so don't see how they've improved it.

As for the elderly, far from helping them, Brown devestated private pension funds by removing tax relief on dividends. The resulting deficit could reach £50billion.

The minimum wage is a real achievement, but I don't agree it's an inherently Labour one. The US had a minimum wage years before Britain.

Just ducking in quickly to say another "thank you" to JayJay for the additional explanation. And to add my observation that the array of political parties there is a lot more complex and potentially interesting than it is here. Our whole Congress is nothing but Democrats and Republicans-except for the one socialist. But no one ever talks about him.

Now, back to the discussion...

---

by Sandia
Our whole Congress is nothing but Democrats and Republicans-except for the one socialist.

---

Oooh, who's that?

---

by Byron
(quotes)
Oooh, who's that?

---

Bernie Sanders of Vermont. He's the U.S. Congress' one socialist, although you'll hardly ever hear him called that in the mainstream media--when the mainstream media isn't just ignoring him. He is referred to as an "independent." The word "socialist' tends to scare some people around these parts.

Anyway, the Vermonters know what he is and they love him. I also think he's great. He was mayor of Vermont's largest city, Burlington, for several years. Then he got elected to Congress and has been re-elected several times. Now, he's running for Senate. The Republicans have targeted him big-time for defeat and expect to spend a lot of money in Vermont to get rid of him. But I sure hope Vermont sends him to the Senate. He'd have a much bigger platform there, which would be a very good thing.

In case you're interested, here's a link to an interview with him that appeared recently in a magazine.

www.progressive.org/mag_intv1205

---

by Sydney
ah! unfortunatley I spoke to soon about the BNP - they didn't get in, but two England First reprsentatives were voted in in two Blackburn wards. You'll understand how disgustingly far right this party is when I say that I'd rather have had the BNP.

This party want to stop immigration completely (well for non-whites and non-europeans anyway); ban interacial marriages; make gay bars, websites and community groups illegal and allow only white players on the England Football team

The message that I'm getting from the local press is that they've manage a big chunk of teh vote largely by misleading the public and implying that their stance was left of the BNP when their members would be quite at home in Nazi Germany.

Alan - my ward now is Marsh House, but I moved back home to late to have my entry on the electoral roll changed so I voted in Sunnyhurst

(Edited by Sydney 05/05/2006 19:44)

---

Urrgh against my better judgement just looked at England First site. I THOUGHT the name Mark Cotterill sounded familiar. Turns out they're a break away party from the BNP. As for how I voted well Lib Dem. Used to be Labour but that was when they WERE LABOUR!! Now here we have a Council where Lib Dem, Labour and Conservatives all have an equal amount of seats. Should make for interesting council meetings.

I didn't get a voting card and our polling station wasn't open so we figured we couldn't vote in our district. I wanted to though, wanted to vote Green.

---

by Sandia
In case you're interested, here's a link to an interview with him that appeared recently in a magazine.

www.progressive.org/mag_intv1205

---

Very interested, cheers Sandia.

Crikey, they handle the word "socialism" with oven-gloves in that interview don't they.

---

by Byron
(quotes)

Crikey, they handle the word "socialism" with oven-gloves in that interview don't they.

---

Yeah, if you're a politician in this country you can be a socialist, or whatever. But you dare not SAY you're a socialist. It's just bizarre. People can agree with someone on just about every issue up and down the line. But if the person says he's a socialist--or any other label that puts him or her out of the "mainstream"-people run screaming for the door.

Luckily for Sanders, the people of Vermont have gotten to know him and respect what he stands for over many years. So they don't care about the labels. There are 435 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, and out of that, Vermont only has one seat because it has such a small population. And time after time, they've sent a socialist to Washington to fill their only seat. And if that can happen in Vermont--which is a place you wouldn't necessarily expect it--maybe that means it's possible for people around here to move beyond labels and start thinking more about what people stand for when they vote. Maybe.

In reading your discussions about politics in the UK, it just seems as though there is more diversity in your political system and the choices you have don't occupy as narrow a spectrum as they seem to here. Whatever its shortcomings, Parliament (well, maybe the House of Commons anyway) seems to have a more varied chorus of voices than the U.S. Congress. I'm not sure HOW varied. Maybe not as much as I might think. But certainly more than here, and I'd be happy with any change here that opens up the system a bit more and allows points of view that don't just run from centrist to conservative to ultra conservative.

Oh, and by the way. I would love for the U.S. Congress to have "question time" each week with the president the way you have with the prime minister. I'd pay money to see Bush have to actually stand up in front of Congress each week and defend his actions against really tough questioning. I don't think he'd last a month. And at the very least, it'd be hilarious TV.

---

by Sandia
In reading your discussions about politics in the UK, it just seems as though there is more diversity in your political system and the choices you have don't occupy as narrow a spectrum as they seem to here.

---

It's true that the House of Commons has some pretty far-out members. George Galloway and Ian Paisley spring immediately to mind.

*But*

They're very much in the minority, and very marginalised. The vast majority of MPs are party loyalists who'll vote the way the whips tell them. Labour is particularly bad for this, packed with Blair Babes and Tony's Cronies, although the Tories are no slouches when it comes to legions of yes-men (and women).

To give an example, when Blair put forward university tuition fees of £3,000 ($5,600) a year (we're still some way behind you guys, what's it Ivy League colleges charge these days, $40,000?), virtually the entire Tory party voted against him, despite the fact it was a fundamentally conservative policy.

---

Oh, and by the way. I would love for the U.S. Congress to have "question time" each week with the president the way you have with the prime minister. I'd pay money to see Bush have to actually stand up in front of Congress each week and defend his actions against really tough questioning. I don't think he'd last a month. And at the very least, it'd be hilarious TV.

---

Wouldn't Dick Cheney just tell them to go f*** themselves?

Question time is good entertainment, but it's more of a pantomime than a vital democratic check. PM and Leader of the Oposition look like they're ripping strips out each other, but it's all an illusion. They've got legions of PR men to help them, and the questions from MPs are submitted days in advance, so they're usually well prepared. Can't remember a PM really being caught out at one, even poor old John "pants" Major. Bet even Bush could stumble through one.

---

by Byron
(quotes)

Wouldn't Dick Cheney just tell them to go f*** themselves?

Question time is good entertainment, but it's more of a pantomime than a vital democratic check. PM and Leader of the Oposition look like they're ripping strips out each other, but it's all an illusion. They've got legions of PR men to help them, and the questions from MPs are submitted days in advance, so they're usually well prepared. Can't remember a PM really being caught out at one, even poor old John "pants" Major. Bet even Bush could stumble through one.

---

That's disappointing. I had no idea it was so scripted. Thought it was spontaneous, and was even giving Blair some credit for being able to at least get up and take the heat and think on his feet--regardless of what I thought of his policies or the specific answers. Well, I'll look at it in a new light now.

As for Cheney, why doesn't Zell Miller just challenge him to a duel and put us all out of our misery?. [Zell, former senator from Georgia, challenged a reporter to a duel a couple of years ago on live TV when he didn't like the reporter's line of questioning.]

---

by Sandia
As for Cheney, why doesn't Zell Miller just challenge him to a duel and put us all out of our misery?. [Zell, former senator from Georgia, challenged a reporter to a duel a couple of years ago on live TV when he didn't like the reporter's line of questioning.]

---

Oi hooplehead, you wanna come over here an' call me a gun totin' Southern Hick?

They work so hard in the South to perpetuate the stereotype--and damned if they don't succeed a lot of the time.