Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Venn diagrams for our times: the new political landscape?
Richard Murphy
Read more about me
Support This Site
If you like what I do please support me on Ko-fi using credit or debit card or PayPal
erm……
Mr. M.,
Good one! 🙂
Old mindset! Draw the issues/agendas first. Then map the parties onto them…. Would look very different
All problems are many faceted requiring many lenses
This is but one
Good stuff. I will be including a copy of this diagram and a link back to here in my next post on aspiblog.
If the left hand oval were ‘anti-austerity’ you may have to add Business to it! The British Chambers of Commerce declare they want “growth, not austerity” from this Conservative Govt. [1] What a surprise, we only have to guess how long the Con Govt will continue with austerity as a tool to reshape [punish] Britain?
As for the general election one may conclude the Conservative election machine was larger, smarter, better funded and craftier than Labour, and by default the smaller parties. The election was won by a sophisticated marketing machine with near-universal media support – aided by a non-functioning democracy – FPTP system.
[1] FT 10th May http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/45b73ca6-f71f-11e4-99aa-00144feab7de.html#axzz3ZUZTo5AG
Richard, I think that under Ed M Labour was further into the Venn circle on the left, but as you said elsewhere, the remnant of neo-liberal Blairites held him back from occupying more of the space opposed to the neo-liberal Washington Consensus.
And opposing that Consensus is not, as several of those posting on your Blog have said, a matter of a Left/Right divide, but rather of whether you opt for a Courageous or a Cowardly State (though Cowardly State supporters are QUITE content to use the power of the state to crack down on dissent, as we shall soon see, when our Human Rights are legislated away!!)
What will happen with Labour under a new Leader is open to question, though I fear they will, like a snail withdrawing into its shell, disappear wholly into the circle on the right, when they SHOULD move over entirely into the left circle, as should the Lib-Dems, now usefully purged of their preposterous “Orange Book” devotees, such as Clegg and Laws.
Whether either of those transformations will occur is open to doubt, but were they to occur, Labour and the Lib-Dems could consider working together with Plaid, the Greens (and even the SNP, which I still feel is actually more nationalist than Left/Courageous state), and run next time as a Syriza style “Progressive Alliance” that COULD reach out, not just to supporters of each of those component Parties, but to the 35% who didn’t vote, with the aim of forming a truly progressive majority government of national restoration, which will be SO sorely needed in 2020.
Labour has got to stop being tribal, read the runes and the signs of the time, and act accordingly, because I am becoming convinced they will NEVER again form a majority Government on their own.
haven’t you been a tad generous with the amount of Labour intersection! (Smiley emoticon).
The left side of your chart received 12% of the vote; I doubt very much Labour will want to move in that direction.
And35% did not vote
Actually, the evidence is that non-voters have pretty similar views to voters (see http://survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Full-Voters-NonVoters-Report.pdf ).
Especially, they also said the election was too close to call
Their opinion carries remarkably little weight right now
‘Real’ result on the left pie chart! https://www.facebook.com/voteorvotenone/photos/a.838261669542522.1073741828.805008649534491/844433275592028/?type=1&theater
a lot vote to keep others out. given a free choice it might be very different.
That’s quite interesting – the parties can be moved about so much these days – we no longer have such a fixed idea of where to place them. Is if left v right or social cohesion v individualism or statism v liberalisation?!
LibDems very hard to place – sometimes seemed so ‘social solidarity’ then at other times so ‘Orange Book’. But simply, for the treachery of Shirley over the NHS, could you move them out of the circles to about one mile north of the south pole?
I make no pretence to absolute accuracy
This is in reality a cartoon
If you see something in it then it works
This ‘helicopter view’ via the Venn diagram is rather chilling. But it says everything we need to know and can dog down from there methinks.
I still think that Labour are wrong to talk about going too far to the Left in losing the election.
If they believe that, then it shows just how out of touch they really are. I suspect this is the case. I feel sorry for them to be honest.
If Labour really has to ask itself where it should be – if it doesn’t know where it belongs – if it has no heart – what is the point? Does any other party ask these questions (well, probably the LibDems)? At the heart of politics is economics and Labour doesn’t seem to know its economic head from its economic a*ole.
“I still think that Labour are wrong to talk about going too far to the Left in losing the election.”
There are 3 inescapable facts from this general election:
1. Labour lost thousands of votes (albeit no seats) to UKIP in its northern heartlands such as Rotherham, Hartlepool and Sunderland. UKIP hurt Labour just as badly, if not more so, than it hurt the Tories (which was the reverse of what most people were expecting).
2. The Lib Dems lost twice as many seats to the Tories as they did to Labour (which, again, is the reverse of what most people were expecting).
3. The Labour Party had a net gain of just one seat from the Tories in England. The insufficiency in this regard was the main reason Labour lost the election. (Even if Labour had won every seat in Scotland, it would still not have won the election).
Given these three facts, how on earth can you conclude that Labour lost the election because it wasn’t left wing enough?
You ignore so many other facts
a) The Miliband effect
b) That Labour has not answered the immigration question
c) The SNP fear factor
Sorry – selective evicdence does not prove a case which has, in any case, to always be solved by conviction
The “facts” that you give are actually reasons why the facts that I stated occurred, and I agree with you to a large extent.
If you are saying Miliband was a poor leader, then yes, absolutely he was, and that caused my points 2. and 3.
Regarding the immigration, again absolutely, that led to my point 1.
The SNP fear factor, well yes, in a way, in that it shows that England in particular has no appetite for a left wing government.
I do not agree with your links from causality to conclusion
Sorry Richard and fellow contributors, I’m going to be a little harsh – without declaring the criteria, this does does not tell us very much.
Is it based on the number of votes they got? Distribution of supporters N to S? Or a subjective feeling in the water about lots of stuff?
Some examples:
– on Europe, surely all except UKIP and the Tories would be in much the same group. Along with a lot of Tory voters. And some Tory MPs
– climate change? Probably similar. With the Greens out to an edge. And maybe only a few Tory voters
– health and social care? Primarily publicly provided and funded? Probably same again. But might even find some Kippers in there
– supporting the growth of new industries with decent jobs? Not sure I heard much from anyone. But if you’re unemployed or low paid, maybe even more important than benefits.
And so on…
And for each topic, what are the dimensions? It’s a messier and more complex world and the old left-right, one dimensional views are not terribly helpfull. I can remember when ‘old’ Labour hated Europe. And I suspect Scargill would have been arguing for fossils and against renewables!
I’d suggest something more like what are variously referred to as spider diagrams or footprint maps. Identify the big issues or themes. Work out some criteria for assessing where a party might sit. And maybe more importantly where you think you sit. Then map that and see where the major overlaps and differences really are.
I feel that might also help people to avoid sliding back into old stereotypes with all the baggage that they bring. Recognising what might be the 80% of shared interests rather than fighting to the death over the 10-20%. Which the old ‘left’ has been traditionally very good at. Whilst this Goverment with its narrow and outdated ideology stuffs us all
Neoliberalism has thrived partly because of the lack of a coherently thought through alternative. That’s a huge and exciting opportunity, not to be left to policy wonks, party activists and other usual suspects. Or we can all join the JPLF. Or the PFLJ. Or the splittists. And nothing will change…
Robin
Sorry: you may not be familiar with this series
The ‘venn diagrams’ are not truly any such thing
Think of them as cartoons intended to provoke discussion rather than any attempt at literal truth, which they are not
All your comments are entirely appropriate, and I am sorry if I mislead
Richard
No problem at all Richard. Electronic exchanges have their limits.
In a way it’s funny that although we talk about the breakdown of the 2/3 party system, it’s still the comfort zone that people tend to retreat to. Which promptly constrains thinking.
These kinds of tools and techniques could be useful – I’ve no idea if they get used by those in the current parties. I fear their thinking is even more imprisoned. I’d like to see those party prisons of thinking bust open…