The rise and rise of the career politician

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Liz on March 1, 2014 at 17:01

Thank you for the history lesson but I'm not sure we read the same history books, Chris. Like most Labour history it seems to stop somewhere about 1997 forgetting 13 years when we had a Labour government that not only failed to reverse the "30 year project" but in many cases helped it on its way. It also makes vast assumptions about the effectiveness of the post 1945 settlement that everything done in the name of the working class was in fact beneficial to the working class when in key areas like education and housing the opposite was true. The welfare state began because of fear of socialism and the struggles of the working class against injustice in the first half of the 20thC played a great role in forcing governments to modify the worst excesses of capitalism this is true, but credit where it is due it was the Liberal Government of Asquith that introduced pensions, factory regulation began at the end of 19thC to name but two examples. Universal social security was under attack almost from the moment it was born and Attlee's government did remarkable things to bring about what they did but it did make mistakes and the Left struggled to stick by first principles even 10 years after the 1945 election. 

However, to deal with your points. 

What followed has been a huge range of measures to flatten our society and they have worked

So how does this square with the fact that inequality in British society over the past 30 years has risen? This can be blamed on the right-wing perhaps, but a right-wing that disguised itself as the Labour Party. As Alan observes, Haringey Lab seem pretty comfortable with implementing Tory policies on education, housing and development telling us that they have no choice.

I'm not sure that is true. Take council housing. Some authorities don't think they have to build houses to give to developers but have decided to keep the bricks and mortar themselves. Weirdly perhaps to those so entrenched in tribalism, it is Conservative councils that are looking at building its own new homes - we're just not seeing that kind of vision from a supposedly Socialist council. Why not?

The assault on the benefits system. Shurely shome mishtake? 

No, no mistake. Posters with very clear messages were appearing as early as 2007, 3 years before Cameron and Clegg stood in the rose garden together. This I found from a post dated 2009. 

This from 2007 in a nice little puff piece on the BBC website about "cheats"

It was the right wing who started the war on the welfare state but the right wing of the Labour Party. [This Third Way that we heard so much about? Remember that? A philosophy purporting to be centre-left but that was very comfortable with the filthy rich?]

The process of politicising welfare began before Cameron although it is true to say that with the connivance of the press they and their Lib Dem helpers have managed to make the issue of social security so toxic Ed Miliband is afraid to go near it. 

On access to justice, well first they came for the immigrants...in 2003 and started a conversation about legal aid that labelled it a "gravy train". When they came for the disabled and the weak, there was no one left etc. 

I could go on but I think you get my drift.

You seem to be saying "a plague of both your houses" but where does that lead us?  You complain of our unrepresentative democracy but do not seem to want to lay responsibility on voters - according to you, it's our rep's fault. What do you want?

Well aside from the fact there's more than two houses from which I get to choose, I don't want to be blamed for a lack of representative democracy. I'm not apathetic. I vote, I always vote. I've voted in every single election I can since I was 18 and proud to do so although in the past I thought I was voting for the sort of party you describe above. I thought I was voting for social justice 20 years ago. It's taken a while for the penny to drop that I've been duped. The three main parties aren't giving me a choice. They're serving up the same dish with more or less bitterness.

What do I want? I want a choice and I want candidates that are not afraid to give me that. I want to be sure that the people I vote for will put listening to the people above the Party even if that means conflict with the Party especially if the Party isn't listening and imposing its will and that of its "masters" upon them. I want to see people who have done something other than stuff leaflets through doors and have their picture taken on such and such a doorstep, something other than hang out with people just like them when they were at  University, people with a track record of community activism, people whose shoes have pinched and who retain their empathy with those still struggling. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Chris Setz on March 1, 2014 at 17:41

Thanks Liz - I could refute each one of your points but am a bit short of time so, without endorsing them (I think your view of history is  plain wrong) let me skip to the meat - what you want:

>> I want a choice and I want candidates that are not afraid to give me that

People are disenchanted with politicians and are leaving political parties in droves.  The chances of you seeing a new party emerge that gives you this type of candidate, or getting that person from the existing parties is zero - they are all whipped.  You are not going to get it, agreed?

>> I want to be sure that the people I vote for will put listening to the people above the Party even if that means conflict with the Party especially if the Party isn't listening and imposing its will and that of its "masters" upon them.

This is subjective and hard to quantify - you want high-quality individuals who will "listen" but all politicians say they base everything they do on what their constituents tell them so how can we know that they simply didn't just make it up?  Some sort of court where we prove that those who say they listened didn't actually? What would be a sign that someone had listened?  Is there any politician you know who you can show has listened where another in the same area has not? How do we deal with the politician who decides their  listening causes them to go against others elected on the same platform? 

>>I want to see people who have done something other than stuff leaflets through doors and have their picture taken on such and such a doorstep.

Me too! I think they do more harm than good and have made that point heavily to as many of them that will listen, but they simply do not agree.  They all say the same thing - doorknocking works. All the parties insist that their share of the vote is directly related to the number of leaflets they deliver and doors they knock on. I disagree but they are all doing it like crazy, so could we be wrong?

>>something other than hang out with people just like them when they were at  University

I don't think that's fair.  People stick together, it's a human thing. In practice, it is unenforceable - how would it work, a count of what type of people the candidates have spent time with?

>>people with a track record of community activism

There are loads of those and they almost all say they wouldn't touch politics with a bargepole - they actively label themselves "non-political" - how are you going to get them to stand for election? 

>>people whose shoes have pinched and who retain their empathy with those still struggling.

But won't those heroes get corrupted by power?

---------------------

In short, I can see that we both want a better world brought about by better representatives but it isn't going to happen any time soon. Politics is the art of the possible - all we can do is try to constructively change what we can change, and have the courage to accept what we cannot change, n'est-ce pas? 

Permalink Reply by Liz on March 1, 2014 at 18:00

Like I said Chris, you and I read different history books and I misplaced my rose-tinted spectacles about 5 years ago. Historians rarely agree totally and I'm sure 'plain wrong' is a form of peer review. 

I find your ideology difficult to square. You present a history of the party that is full of heroic struggle and workers against the bosses and yet you tell me that my idealism is unworkable and I'm not going to get what I want.

You are not going to get it, agreed?

I'm not keen on corporal punishment and being whipped and I'm guessing the discipline and punish nature of the political establishment is a big turn off for a lot of folk

they almost all say they wouldn't touch politics with a bargepole

That doesn't bother you? You don't question why community activists say that they avoid political parties. I'm not in a political party but you are. It's not for me to tell you but I suggest this weird mix of myth making history with a  'we can't change that' present might be one reason. Activists tend to think you can change things.

 doorknocking works

Especially when furnished with the right data eh?

won't those heroes get corrupted by power?

I don't know. Did Dennis Skinner? Or Keir Hardy?

p.s. Chris I might add you are one of the few members of the Labour Party that I know who are even willing to debate these issues and not resort to political point scoring for which I'm grateful. 

Permalink Reply by Chris Setz on March 1, 2014 at 21:06

>> I'm not sure we read the same history books

Our values cloud our judgements, Liz - is there a more "objective" source of facts we can agree on?  The BBC are lambasted by every side of the debate for bias. Everyone can select their favourite BBC 'first draft of history' as justification. I don't think the Beeb are concerted in their bias, but I do think they skew things towards their own internal, elitist view of the audience and side with the establishment.

>>13 years when we had a Labour government 

I know I do this too, but such sweeping statements undermine the force of the specifics. Let's agree that the Labour government seized their chance to attempt a series of the sorts of changes that only two huge successive majorities permit. Education, education education meant a huge investment in not only the fabric of schools but the status of the profession and a similar transformation was attempted in the NHS, to reverse the slide of nurses and doctors, agreed?

Here's some more positive BBC spin:

>>everything done in the name of the working class was in fact beneficial to the working class

I take it for granted that governments mess up - with the best of intentions, they can easily make things much, much worse.  I can list a huge range of things that the Labour governments got incredibly wrong. To me it's the greatest conceit of the politicians - they promise improvement because they think they can deliver it but the truth is that beneficial change is really hard, usually outside of their control, and debatable. It incenses me that the ConDems keep saying that Labour crashed the economy in 2008 - I know they didn't and can prove it but the Tories particularly have got a lot of people believing the lie - that seems to be a political victory, even though it is a calumny.

I am sure you have read biographies that try to portray the realities of political power and maybe have had real experience in huge organisations. Small really is beautiful and large almost impossible to manage. Govts must know this but still try to give the impression that they are in charge - they are not in charge.  We are almost ungovernable and yet to quote the HHGTTG "we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"

I think it's a male thing - men were called upon by the primitive family for protection against uncertainty and that manifests itself today in leaders providing assurance.  We get soundbites that feed the illusion that we understand the world and, more importantly, that our leaders do but the truth is that it is vastly complex and the cult of the individual has gradually weaned us away from any appetite for state control, making it much harder for the govt to get us to do anything, let alone believe their reasons.

Meanwhile the state has taken over the duties once left to the church and the family.  My kids learned about the birds and the bees through a school-delivered BBC video. If you behave badly in public, the condemns want a law that criminalised any nuisance or annoying behaviour in the streets incl....

The point is one of general values.  In trying to do good, govts often do harm but by some magic stuff does get through and they lay claim to those changes that are underpinned by their values.

You could argue as to which actually work but, if we are to have a government at all, it must surely enact change and, if it is fairly elected, the change it enacts it does so on behalf of everyone, so if there is a choice as to whether it was good for us or not, we have to choose to beleive it worked, don't we?  Otherwise, why have a govt at all?

People want things to be better and blame the govt for the mess we are in and they're right - it often is the fault of the govt. But those decisions are fairly made - they are made from a basis of carefully thought-out values and principles that have been validated by the electoral process over decades - it's the best we can do.

Yeah, the  system is faulty and yeah, people turn away in disgust but it's the only game in town and there doesn't seem to be a way to change it except by the force of ideas. The politicians seem to have learned the trick of patenting any good idea that gains popularity but I don't blame them for stealing each other's policies. It really is a world in which whoever can get to the good ideas first can claim them for themselves. So, if you have any good ideas, let them loose!

What it comes down to is, who would you rather be governed by, the right or the left?  Each outlines a distinct set of values and principles. You pays your money and you takes your choice. There are no alternative parties with any chance of power and I think that is what hits you hardest - the party you want to support does not exist, and probably will never exist.

You were duped into thinking that your vote supported a set of well-meaning values when the truth is that as soon as they get power, politicians do whatever they have to to keep it, even if that means betrayals - who knew? You and I have no significant effect as individuals and (I presume) neither has the guts to stand for election, so where does that leave us?  Cultivate your own garden?

I used to think that "nice" people with middle-class values were deluding themselves but now I am not so sure.  Living an honourable life, being kind to others, helping children to grow up to further your values, showing concern for the disadvantaged et al does actually have a beneficial effect.  

What you do locally fosters an environment, almost by osmosis, where stuff can happen that otherwise wouldn't.  We are still in a world where people like Rachel Carson (as you probably know, her book, Silent Spring, is still having an impact on environmental thinking since it was published in the 1960's) can make a far-reaching change in attitudes that lead to changes, so be the change you want to see, even if that's not by being allied to any mainstream party and leave it at that, OK?

Permalink Reply by John McMullan on February 28, 2014 at 18:02

What happened to diversity Chris? I thought that was a good thing? I thought it was good that Alan Johnson was a postman... Was I wrong?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Chris Setz on February 28, 2014 at 18:40

Ah come on, John, don't be silly! 

We all want a world where the elite reflect the demographic but how can it ever?  A quote from Johnny Depp - "Fame drives you crazy in the first year". Success in almost every field of life leads to membership of an elite, which is often acknowledged by wealth.  

Alan Johnson may have been a postman, but politicians in Cabinet posts as he was earn far, far more than post office workers ever could, so did that change him? All of the Cabinets of practically all of the governments of whatever party are millionaires - should politicians be specially taxed? 

Of all the parties, Labour has done most to encourage diversity and you know it!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John McMullan on February 28, 2014 at 21:17

Tim Waters, Peter Morton and the Secretary of the St Ann's Branch of the Labour Party were all at Oxford together. Surely there is a safe northern seat that needs them (sorry it's not as cool as London).

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Alan Stanton on March 1, 2014 at 14:40

And there's Noel Park councillor James Stewart - thankfully, standing down in May - who is often to be seen on TV carrying Ed Miliband's bag.

And let's not forget Bounds Green councillor Joanna Christophides - sadly reselected - who is also the part-time paid organiser of the Labour Parties in Haringey. Funded out of a compulsory levy on councillor's allowances. (I.e.  public funds paid to councillors to enable us to do our jobs as councillors.)

(Tottenham Hale ward councillor)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Philip on March 1, 2014 at 1:44

Surely we want a world which is democratic? We need people power in a real sense and it has never been so far away in my lifetime. We need a mass Democratic Party. Labour Party members don't even control one iota of Party policy ....whether or not candidates or members are ordinary folk IS important but the real issue is whether they can change anything

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Chris Setz on March 1, 2014 at 12:26

I guess many people want a world where each person can change things, but could such a world exist? The way it seems to work is "command and control" - a throwback from the way our society was formed to fight the 2nd World War.  Organisations have leaders and leaders make decisions. If the crap really hits the fan we have a long history of military reactions - we send the army in.

Politics seems to add a complex twist - our reps are not obliged to honour the principles on which they were elected. Even at the local level that is true. Some Haringey Cllrs have decided, in mid-term, to leave the party there were elected to and cross over to the other side, or become independent - no re-election needed.

It seems to me that the fundamental problem is that those who care the most about power obtain it yet are usually not the best representatives. One way forward, like in so many other areas of modern life, is to throw tech at it.  If you could vote on almost every issue under consideration, would you then be better represented?

Are we in fact living in a democracy now?  No party since the war ever having been voted in by a majority of the voters. We don't seem to favour revolutions but are we not simply a benign dictatorship? There are other ways - eg consensus decision making.

Whatever system we have, I doubt that people will get involved - they don't seem to care enough to even find out basic facts about the issues.  That lack of oversight and vigilance leaves us on a sticky wicket.  We seem so easily driven by the media.

Another problem I see is that people cling onto their prejudices for dear life whatever the truth is - how do you represent them?

This all renders people powerless, meanwhile the system appears to change, but plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Chris Setz on March 1, 2014 at 18:36

Completely agree that creative people have a massive political effect- they can show how things can be, should be and may be if we're not careful:

However, those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it - the lessons of history are vital and techoptimism is hollow - the NSA has shown that - we don't want to swap one set of masters for another.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Chris Setz on March 2, 2014 at 13:40

I get the feeling that you really don't like the Labour Party and you want people to realise how evil they are so you get what you want - for people to vote Lib Dem - is that true?

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page