Michael Meacher - Labour's Future: The Blairite-Brownite vendetta is destroying Labour.
The tragedy for the country is that half or more of the electorate is now disenfranchised, with no political party likely to gain power which represents them. New Labour and Toryism are effectively two sides of a single coin. The only hope is that if Labour does, as the polls suggest, crash to unprecedented defeat this weekend, it may finally compel a realignment of forces within the Labour Party, allowing at last a modern progressive voice of Labour to re-emerge which is neither Old Labour nor New Labour, but an advocate for a new economic order replacing the neo-liberal finance capitalism that has imploded while at the same time championing the social justice and environmental aspirations which have been so damagingly suppressed.
Step one is enough Labour MPs saying so.
Looks like Michael Meacher is one of them.
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:
Buy me a coffee!
[…] a bit of a snit fit. From those inside these are two interesting reactions so far, Livingstone, Meacher (!)Hmmm, What chance John McDonnell taking over No. 10? Not much. And anyway let someone else take […]
I though it was the disastrous extension of Margaret Thatcher’s wanton deregulation of the financial services; the concomitant promotion of asset booms (due to cheap credit) as actually being a sign of a healthy economy; the tax breaks for the extremely rich via non-dom rules; hedge fund acquisitions profits being taxed as capital gains at rates lower than the those paid by cleaning ladies; the embracing of off-balance sheet deception via PFI funding of infrastructure projects; a billion thrown away on the millennium dome; allowing local government management salaries to run riot chasing city salaries; prosecuting a war on the evidence of a student paper cribbed from the internet; and the use of hidden expense claims to boost MP salaries that is seeing to the demise of the labour party.
I’d have thought that’s enough incompetence to shatter the faith of any labour supporter. It did for mine.
Oh, and I forgot: the embracing of George W Bush’s policy of pushing paranoia to conduct the most systematic and consistent attack on civil liberties the UK has seen since the need for WWII curfews.
Labour will not recover from the current shambles; the PLP comprises of a a hopeless leader, a spineless cabinet and a collection of divided, self-indulgent rebels while the ranks of party workers and councillors in the shires are decimated and the trade union movement has been further weakened by recession. Progessive politics now depends on forming a progressive coalition bringing together elements of Labour, LibDems and Greens. This cannot happen without PR.
George
Agreed
Richard
I too concur, George.
There is also a terrible environmental disaster looming in the form of the collapse of the ocean’s fishing stocks… currently being offset by fleets pillaging the Indian ocean and greater depths. Both the Labour and Tory parties have consistently voted in favour of ignoring scientific advice on catch levels. The consequence of a Grand Banks Cod fisheries type collapse will be a terrible hole in the protein requirements of humanity and more forest burning for pasture to try to compensate.
What is it about lawyer politicians that makes them so short-sighted?
Anyway, aside from PR and consensus politics we need to consider that being a politician should be a public service and we need a system of quotas that draws more professions into politics. Simply relying on a stream of lawyers, bankers and wannabes has failed democracy. We need Marine Biologists, Toxicologists, Architects, Social Planners, Epidemiologists and Nurses: simply leaving their advice in the hands of lawyers has shown lawyers incapable of understanding that the worlds ecosystems do compromise.
Apologies, that should have read:
…do NOT compromise.
Yes, we need more specialists in parliament – to advise the law makers in the first chamber. We should do this through an elected second chamber, with professional bodies doing the electing, not the general public who cannot know who are the best people. The general public should elect the first chamber which would be preeminent.
The problem for the left is that the expenses row just reinforces the belief that politicians are not to be trusted with taxpayers money and hence that higher taxes are, a priori, a bad thing.
But tax is just one side of it. What we need to do is have a big debate on what economics should mean in the 21st century. We are all, in the western world, pretty “comfortable”. There is poverty and inequality, but there is no reason why all people should not be well housed, clothed and educated. What we need to do is develop a system which celebrates this and aims to develop a form of economy that is not based upon the idea of endless growth. Resources are limited and many are not renewable. What we should be focussing on is increasing our quality of life, rather than simply the quantity of goods we consume.
And of course, that applies even more in the 3rd world. If everyone in india is going to have a car and a fridge and a right to red meat at every meal we may as well turn the lights off right now. Reduce, reuse and recycle should be a global motto, not just one for individuals. And the west should set an example: instead we have the nonsense of a third runway at Heathrow, because economic expansion is just that bit more important than doing anything for the environment.
Well, it has to stop. But I’m not holding my breath yet.