"Labour’s problem is its lack of political artistry" says Steve Richards, writing in the Financial Times.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/c7b512ae-032f-11e3-9a46-00144feab7de,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2Fc7b512ae-032f-11e3-9a46-00144feab7de.html&_i_referer=http%3A%2F%2Ft.co%2FOQ7E71251Q#axzz2c1wzqp27
Labour's problem is actually a lack of socialism.
Political artistry, or style over substance, was used by New Labour as a gloss to cover the divides between what is a fractured political movement unsure about its identity. As a tactic it is now redundant - the gloss has cracked and fallen away. No-one is going to be fooled by a reapplication of gloss.
The mistake made by Labour was in assuming that because they failed to win on a socialist manifesto in 1983 they would fail to win with a socialist programme in subsequent elections.
Therefore no-one wasted any time developing modern and attractive socialist policies. The choice offered is between the Blairite version of socialism lite and an old-fashioned dinosaur version espoused by the likes of Ken Livingstone and Dennis Skinner. Not very attractive is it!
The Labour leadership would do well looking at the article by Labour student activist Tom King (Studying Politics at SOAS, Secretary of SOAS Labour and Student CND): http://socialistandthecity.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/a-promising-idea.html which lists ten ideas they could adopt for their manifesto.
Of course, it is not for me as a Conservative to "help" the Labour party. And my motives are going to be suspected anyway. But as a Conservative I do care about institutions, including the institution that is the Labour party. We all lose when democracy does not function properly. The Labour party needs to get up off its knees, and put forward a full-blooded socialist programme. Then we can move on from this phony war where we all pretend we are more or less the same.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/c7b512ae-032f-11e3-9a46-00144feab7de,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2Fc7b512ae-032f-11e3-9a46-00144feab7de.html&_i_referer=http%3A%2F%2Ft.co%2FOQ7E71251Q#axzz2c1wzqp27
Labour's problem is actually a lack of socialism.
Political artistry, or style over substance, was used by New Labour as a gloss to cover the divides between what is a fractured political movement unsure about its identity. As a tactic it is now redundant - the gloss has cracked and fallen away. No-one is going to be fooled by a reapplication of gloss.
The mistake made by Labour was in assuming that because they failed to win on a socialist manifesto in 1983 they would fail to win with a socialist programme in subsequent elections.
Therefore no-one wasted any time developing modern and attractive socialist policies. The choice offered is between the Blairite version of socialism lite and an old-fashioned dinosaur version espoused by the likes of Ken Livingstone and Dennis Skinner. Not very attractive is it!
The Labour leadership would do well looking at the article by Labour student activist Tom King (Studying Politics at SOAS, Secretary of SOAS Labour and Student CND): http://socialistandthecity.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/a-promising-idea.html which lists ten ideas they could adopt for their manifesto.
Of course, it is not for me as a Conservative to "help" the Labour party. And my motives are going to be suspected anyway. But as a Conservative I do care about institutions, including the institution that is the Labour party. We all lose when democracy does not function properly. The Labour party needs to get up off its knees, and put forward a full-blooded socialist programme. Then we can move on from this phony war where we all pretend we are more or less the same.
No comments:
Post a Comment