The future of the Labour Party

in reality, all of this has been a total load of old bollocks
User avatar
clive gash
Thanks Kate - I love it
Posts: 11690
Joined: 29 Sep 2007, 00:32
Location: standing around, exchanging tales and mischief...

Re: The future of the Labour Party

Postby clive gash » 01 Oct 2016, 09:46

Diamond Dog wrote:I'd like to say I'd never resort to bombs - but I'm not sure I can ever truly 'walk in those shoes'?

User avatar
Diamond Dog
"Self Quoter" Extraordinaire.
Posts: 61607
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 21:04
Location: High On Poachers Hill

Re: The future of the Labour Party

Postby Diamond Dog » 01 Oct 2016, 10:26

Toby wrote:I guess at the heart of it, for me, is that elites will always occur. You can try and "flatten out" society, but ultimately what will happen is that castes of well-educated, well-connected people will rise to the top and make that leap into politics.

I'm personally happy for elites to get on with the mandate of governing the country, because, well, politics is a maddeningly complex subject and one best left to them to get on with rather than trying to be as inclusive as possible. Most people (myself included) are completely unaware of the massive intricacies involved with politics.. As long as the various institutions that make up governance perform as they ought to, particularly with ensuring a limit to corruption, bad practice and the like, then I'm happy. Of course, it's never quite as simple as that, and human beings what they are, problems with that set up will occur. I'm not suggesting that it is a perfect system, more that it is a system that over the years, has, in contrast to our European cousins, proved to be relatively stable and one that can adapt to change. I don't personally think that a perfect system exists, and that the pursuit of such a thing is a dangerous chimera.



That really is the most depressingly stupid post I've seen from someone that I consider to (generally) be an intelligent and cogent thinker.

Just let the moneyed people rule the country - after all, they'll be the ones who are "well educated and well connected". In fact, bypass elections and just give them power. Dispensed by an all powerful, unelected leader. Let's go a bit further and simplify that - just give it to the wealthiest person and then let him pass it on to his rightful heir. And then let that leader decide who amongst the well educated and well connected should hold positions of power - and give them fancy titles too. Lord, Duke, Earl...nice snappy things like that. And let the chosen one call himself King.

Sound familar?
Jimbo wrote:Davey, Props. You are not all wrong. While waiting for my bile bath I went further and indeed, I was misinformed by the media.

User avatar
Toby
Arsehole all Erect
Posts: 21214
Joined: 28 Jul 2003, 23:13
Contact:

Re: The future of the Labour Party

Postby Toby » 01 Oct 2016, 10:46

I think you miss my point Peter, rather spectacularly if I may say so.

The notion of an elite is not just based on wealth or inheritance. A socialist government would have an elite just like any other, as the examples of the 20th century have borne out. So my pessimism on the progressive attitudes of a socialist party are based on that principle, that any attempt to flatten out society to make it more equal will only bear new elites. Who is to say that the new elites would have any qualities that are better than those currently in charge? I l don't know and to be honest given the examples of history, it is difficult to think of any. You may mention the French revolution but if you lived in Paris in 1793 and witnessed the terror, I suspect you may think differently.

I think the British system of a constitutional monarchy works. It is by no means perfect and has many flaws. But it is continuously adapting to the changing geography of modern society through common law and our parliamentary system.

And your logical leap to an unelected despot demonstrates a chronic lack of political imagination. Am I suggesting that? No, I'm merely stating that I have a certain respect for a system that has evolved over centuries and that perhaps we should be circumspect in thinking that things are totally wrong and need uprooting.

Anyway, back to the Labour party.

User avatar
The Great Defector
Posts: 13695
Joined: 07 Jan 2012, 18:16

Re: The future of the Labour Party

Postby The Great Defector » 01 Oct 2016, 13:13

I just think it's funny that when they brought in wage/salaries for members of parliament that it was suppose to create an even playing field. It's hasn't really has it?
Drama Queenie wrote:You are a chauvenist of the quaintest kind. About as threatening as Jack Duckworth, you are a harmless relic of that cherished era when things were 'different'. Now get back to drawing a moustache on that page three model

User avatar
Diamond Dog
"Self Quoter" Extraordinaire.
Posts: 61607
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 21:04
Location: High On Poachers Hill

Re: The future of the Labour Party

Postby Diamond Dog » 01 Oct 2016, 13:22

But when you talk of "a well educated, well connected elite" that strongly implies wealth and privilege, does it not?
Jimbo wrote:Davey, Props. You are not all wrong. While waiting for my bile bath I went further and indeed, I was misinformed by the media.

User avatar
Toby
Arsehole all Erect
Posts: 21214
Joined: 28 Jul 2003, 23:13
Contact:

Re: The future of the Labour Party

Postby Toby » 01 Oct 2016, 13:42

Diamond Dog wrote:But when you talk of "a well educated, well connected elite" that strongly implies wealth and privilege, does it not?


Privilege and wealth will always happen. That is my point; to think that you can create a society that doesn't have those aspects is, in my opinion, naïve.

Money and family will always exist.

User avatar
Diamond Dog
"Self Quoter" Extraordinaire.
Posts: 61607
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 21:04
Location: High On Poachers Hill

Re: The future of the Labour Party

Postby Diamond Dog » 01 Oct 2016, 13:51

Toby wrote:
Diamond Dog wrote:But when you talk of "a well educated, well connected elite" that strongly implies wealth and privilege, does it not?


Privilege and wealth will always happen. That is my point; to think that you can create a society that doesn't have those aspects is, in my opinion, naïve.

Money and family will always exist.



But you are saying that a socialist with money is unfit/unable to govern, whereas anyone else is (apparently).
Jimbo wrote:Davey, Props. You are not all wrong. While waiting for my bile bath I went further and indeed, I was misinformed by the media.

User avatar
clive gash
Thanks Kate - I love it
Posts: 11690
Joined: 29 Sep 2007, 00:32
Location: standing around, exchanging tales and mischief...

Re: The future of the Labour Party

Postby clive gash » 01 Oct 2016, 14:03

He isn't and he hasn't. Show your working out idiot.
Diamond Dog wrote:I'd like to say I'd never resort to bombs - but I'm not sure I can ever truly 'walk in those shoes'?

User avatar
Toby
Arsehole all Erect
Posts: 21214
Joined: 28 Jul 2003, 23:13
Contact:

Re: The future of the Labour Party

Postby Toby » 01 Oct 2016, 14:10

No I'm not. My initial point about governing elites is that they will always exist, irrespective of the political hue. To suggest that a new government (eg a socialist one) would not have an elite of some sort, whether it be intellectual, moral, financial or whatever, is too simplistic a viewpoint. And that the very structure of governing creates elites.


My overall point about the existing order is that I'm not too bothered by this situation. And that the Oakeshott quote in my experience sums up most people's views on politics in this country. The fact that the National Trust has 8 times as many members as the Labour party might provide an indication that on the whole people prefer informal civic networks to outright political organisations here.

User avatar
Diamond Dog
"Self Quoter" Extraordinaire.
Posts: 61607
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 21:04
Location: High On Poachers Hill

Re: The future of the Labour Party

Postby Diamond Dog » 01 Oct 2016, 14:14

Toby wrote:No I'm not. My initial point about governing elites is that they will always exist, irrespective of the political hue. To suggest that a new government (eg a socialist one) would not have an elite of some sort, whether it be intellectual, moral, financial or whatever, is too simplistic a viewpoint. And that the very structure of governing creates elites.



But you then go on to say, in essence, better the devil you know - and the devil we know in this country has always been a capitalist one. Elites or not, it seems bizarre to suggest that we should stick with a system that has failed the people time and time again, rather than risk a socialist version because that elite will be unfit to govern/will not work.

Still, as you say "I think the British system of a constitutional monarchy works. It is by no means perfect and has many flaws. But it is continuously adapting to the changing geography of modern society through common law and our parliamentary system. " I think it's fairly clear we are poles apart.
Jimbo wrote:Davey, Props. You are not all wrong. While waiting for my bile bath I went further and indeed, I was misinformed by the media.

User avatar
Toby
Arsehole all Erect
Posts: 21214
Joined: 28 Jul 2003, 23:13
Contact:

Re: The future of the Labour Party

Postby Toby » 06 Oct 2016, 10:34

Diamond Dog wrote:But you then go on to say, in essence, better the devil you know - and the devil we know in this country has always been a capitalist one. Elites or not, it seems bizarre to suggest that we should stick with a system that has failed the people time and time again, rather than risk a socialist version because that elite will be unfit to govern/will not work.


I guess this depends on what you constitute as "failing the people".

To me, that would mean a system that utterly fails to represent the political views of the population. Now, I'm not suggesting that what we have is perfect, but can you tell me that the system has "failed time and time again"? Failure to me would constitute consistent situations of revolt, and well, we had our last serious one quite a long time ago. There are always going to be discontented sections of the population, just as there are going to be contented ones. It is the management of those sections that constitutes politics.

I don't think the wholesale replacement of the existing elite with a new one would work. In fact I think it would utterly fail, and it won't happen anyway. What we have seen over the last 100 years since the emergence of the Labour party is the assimilation of socialist thought and ideals into the existing elite. That is what the House of Lords is for. And that's why I think our constitutional monarchy works.

User avatar
Diamond Dog
"Self Quoter" Extraordinaire.
Posts: 61607
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 21:04
Location: High On Poachers Hill

Re: The future of the Labour Party

Postby Diamond Dog » 06 Oct 2016, 10:38

Anyone who defends the institution of the House Of Lords or the Royal Family- on any sensible, logical or moral basis- clearly has no idea what 'democracy' means.
Jimbo wrote:Davey, Props. You are not all wrong. While waiting for my bile bath I went further and indeed, I was misinformed by the media.

User avatar
Toby
Arsehole all Erect
Posts: 21214
Joined: 28 Jul 2003, 23:13
Contact:

Re: The future of the Labour Party

Postby Toby » 06 Oct 2016, 10:48

Demos - People -
Kratos - Power

Give me an example of a democracy that doesn't have any sort of elite in it.

User avatar
Toby
Arsehole all Erect
Posts: 21214
Joined: 28 Jul 2003, 23:13
Contact:

Re: The future of the Labour Party

Postby Toby » 06 Oct 2016, 10:52

Diamond Dog wrote:Anyone who defends the institution of the House Of Lords or the Royal Family- on any sensible, logical or moral basis


http://www.voiceofthenorth.net/defendin ... use-lords/

What’s more, it currently comes much closer to fulfilling the role of an effective opposition to the executive than the Labour Party under the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn.


:lol:

User avatar
Toby
Arsehole all Erect
Posts: 21214
Joined: 28 Jul 2003, 23:13
Contact:

Re: The future of the Labour Party

Postby Toby » 06 Oct 2016, 10:54

rather than risk a socialist version because that elite will be unfit to govern/will not work.


And you have in this previous post suggested that a socialist elite was acceptable.

Personally I think this undermines your entire logic. You wanted to get rid of the elite, but it's ok to have an elite as long as it's socialist. Therein lies the problem.

User avatar
Diamond Dog
"Self Quoter" Extraordinaire.
Posts: 61607
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 21:04
Location: High On Poachers Hill

Re: The future of the Labour Party

Postby Diamond Dog » 06 Oct 2016, 11:00

Toby wrote:Demos - People -
Kratos - Power

Give me an example of a democracy that doesn't have any sort of elite in it.


Actually I think you'll find the first democracy was actually just that - power given to individuals, to represent them, by election.

Which part of the above do you think the Lords & the Monarchy are lacking?
Jimbo wrote:Davey, Props. You are not all wrong. While waiting for my bile bath I went further and indeed, I was misinformed by the media.

User avatar
Diamond Dog
"Self Quoter" Extraordinaire.
Posts: 61607
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 21:04
Location: High On Poachers Hill

Re: The future of the Labour Party

Postby Diamond Dog » 06 Oct 2016, 11:01

Toby wrote:
rather than risk a socialist version because that elite will be unfit to govern/will not work.


And you have in this previous post suggested that a socialist elite was acceptable.

Personally I think this undermines your entire logic. You wanted to get rid of the elite, but it's ok to have an elite as long as it's socialist. Therein lies the problem.


Not at all.

It is you that is disregarding a socialist elite - not me disregarding an elite per se.
Jimbo wrote:Davey, Props. You are not all wrong. While waiting for my bile bath I went further and indeed, I was misinformed by the media.

User avatar
Toby
Arsehole all Erect
Posts: 21214
Joined: 28 Jul 2003, 23:13
Contact:

Re: The future of the Labour Party

Postby Toby » 06 Oct 2016, 11:06

Diamond Dog wrote:
Actually I think you'll find the first democracy was actually just that - power given to individuals, to represent them, by election.
?


Yes, but to suggest that the first democracy was an ideal is farcical. Only Athenian male citizens could vote. Slaves and women had no say, nor did any non-residents of Athens. Around 10,000 men in total out of a projected population of 75,000. And it lasted around 75 years.

So in effect it was the creation of a governing elite.

There has never been an ideal democracy. It is an ideal to look up to. Even in countries reborn like the Federal Republic of West Germany, elites from previous power structures existed.

User avatar
Diamond Dog
"Self Quoter" Extraordinaire.
Posts: 61607
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 21:04
Location: High On Poachers Hill

Re: The future of the Labour Party

Postby Diamond Dog » 06 Oct 2016, 11:09

So why don't we 'start looking up to it' now?

I don't understand your logic- you suggest it's a worthy ideal, but dismiss it out-of-hand as unworkable.
Jimbo wrote:Davey, Props. You are not all wrong. While waiting for my bile bath I went further and indeed, I was misinformed by the media.

User avatar
Toby
Arsehole all Erect
Posts: 21214
Joined: 28 Jul 2003, 23:13
Contact:

Re: The future of the Labour Party

Postby Toby » 06 Oct 2016, 11:25

Diamond Dog wrote:So why don't we 'start looking up to it' now?


Solon the Lawgiver started this in Athens around 600 BCE, producing new laws in an attempt to halt moral and political decline in Athens, leading to the birth of a nascent but short "democracy".

So the notion of us hunting the "ideal" has been in existence for a long time. So to suggest that the narrative of trying to resolve inequality in society is a new one is utterly false.

It's also worth reminding you that the Soviets and Chinese tried that one quite recently with staggeringly poor results.

I'm not sure either why you think I'm against democracy. A constitutional monarchy is democratic - the sovereign has no executive power to speak of and performs a merely symbolic role. Do you think that the USA for example is more democratic than us purely because the President can be elected?


Return to “Nextdoorland”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests