Why the lib-dems are shit

[Louis MacNeice]

It does show the cart-before-the-horse approach taken by this argument though. That politics determines the system rather than the system determining (crudely put) politics. Some very basic foundational arguments are either being forgotten here or deliberately being thrown overboard.

It reminds me of the sort of position would hear being taken by, for want of a better phrase, 'Marxism Today types'; it was wishful 'cart before horse' thinking then and remains so now.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[Random]

It reminds me of the sort of position would hear being taken by, for want of a better phrase, 'Marxism Today types'; it was wishful 'cart before horse' thinking them and remains so now.

What did the MT lot used to say?

 

[frogwoman]

That guy on their website does actually look like Tory Boy from the harry enfield show.

 

[kyser_soze]

...don't attack the lib-dems, don't seek to damage the lib-dems because the result might weaken their position in the coalition

Well, that was always a fallacious argument, as we're now seeing. They can't be any weaker than they are at present.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

What did the MT lot used to say?

There was great enthusiasm from some MT types for electoral reform as a way of 'shaping a new politics'. Writing in 1988 in Marxism Today (latter reproduced in New Times) David Marquand came out with the following gem:

It [SLD] is, after all, the only mainstream UK party committed to constitutional reform: and although it's support for PR is partially dictated by self interest, PR is an indefensible first step towards a citizen democracy. (bold added)​

Twenty two years later we find Lib Dem supporters using the same arse about face illogic, not to argue for the 'first step' of PR but for the more of the same of AV. The thinking is no more robust, while the ambition has dwindled to nothing more than self interest.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[articul8]

Do you really think that PR would have seen the emergence of a mass CP in the UK (which is the implication of the above)? Couldn't there, for example, be rather more important factors in the polical, trade union, and religous histories of the UK working class, which differentiate them from France and Italy, than parliamentary balloting arrangements?

Louis MacNeice

I didn't say that the failure of a mass CP was simply attritable to FPTP (obviously it wasn't *only* this) - but it was a significant obstacle (not the only one or the most important) but the fact that the CP itself in both the UK and the US promoted STV is surely not an accident?

 

[Random]

I didn't say that the failure of a mass CP was simply attritable to FPTP (obviously it wasn't *only* this) - but it was a significant obstacle (not the only one or the most important) but the fact that the CP itself in both the UK and the US promoted STV is surely not an accident?

That's right, you and the lib dems are the heirs of the Communist party. I can't take you seriously any more, btw.

 

[articul8]

There's a really damaging logic at work here - don't attack the lib-dems, don't seek to damage the lib-dems because the result might weaken their position in the coalition.

Absolute 100% misrepresentation of my position - a pretty shabby way of arguing. I am arguing *against* the coalition and the LD role within it - but arguing that it would easier to sweep both parties out of office (a majority Labour government) if voters in Con/LD marginals had the option of demonstrating their political opposition to the LDs and the coalition AND still being able to cast an effective anti-Tory vote - which is where AV comes in.

But of course I'm NOT arguing a Labour majority per se is hardly a guarantee of stopping the cuts or transforming society (as if) , it is just the least worst outcome. Which is among the reasons I want to see a mass movement outside parliament emerge NOW (*not* wait until the next general election) to build an irresistable force that shifts Labour to the left. And I'd like to see independent left candidates, trade union candidates, single issue protests etc have the room to stand without automatically being squeezed by the tactical wish to avoid splitting the Labour vote and letting in LD/Cons.

How the hell can we build up something against all this crap without attacking it and if we attack it we have to aim to weaken it. There's no sensible political logic in denying this.

Attacking the coalition yes, but doing it intelligently - seizing on something that is *tactically* useful that the contradictions of the coalition have brought forward, while keeping up political opposition.

If you want to disagree with me - fine - but do it on the basis of what I'm actually arguing not some fantasy "don't attack the liberals" position that is a million miles away from my position.

 

[articul8]

That's right, you and the lib dems are the heirs of the Communist party. I can't take you seriously any more, btw.

Well how about you engage with my *actual* argument (see above) not this fantasy bollocks about defending the LDs. The LDs are a busted flush now electorally - they've fucked themselves up. So we needn't waste time cutting off our own noses to spite the LDs - when the only party that benefits is Cameron's.

 

[articul8]

Huh ?? this is a bit i don't get , they already have a majority!! the lib dems and tories are basically two different types of tory, you can't hold a piece of paper betwen them.

But how - realistically - are you going to get rid of them unless you elect a Labour government? (not auto-Labourism - see above - except to the extent FPTP makes it inexorable) how does handing a walkover of the South to the Tories help achieve that?

It seems to me that you want labour back in power (which is fair enough if that's what you think) and think that this approach will do it - but even the labour party are opposing it on the basis that it's tied a boundary changing bill iirc

No Labour are opposing the Bill (so would I!) on the basis of the boundary changes BUT if gets passed the changes will already be in place - and Ed Miliband has said he will be voting YES - so assume the party will largely follow suit (a minority won't but they are neither here nor there).

how do you think that a tory government would be worse than what this govt is doing? for that matter how do you think a majority lib dem govt would be better?

A majority LD government is a fantasy (not mine!). I don't see that a Con majority represents a step forward from a LD/CON coalition. It isn't a step backwards either - as you say they are in this together. But how realistically can both parties be swept out of power except by a Labour majority? That strikes me as something of a step forward, although how much depends on what kind of movement is built outside of parliament.

 

[articul8]

There was great enthusiasm from some MT types for electoral reform as a way of 'shaping a new politics'.

Yes there was - as indeed is inevitable once you take seriously the "forward of march of labour halted" thesis - but the fact that the "New politics" happened without electoral reform led pretty directly to New Labour and where we are today.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

I didn't say that the failure of a mass CP was simply attritable to FPTP (obviously it wasn't *only* this) - but it was a significant obstacle (not the only one or the most important) but the fact that the CP itself in both the UK and the US promoted STV is surely not an accident?

Please go and read the various versions of the British Road to Socialism (and the CPB's Britain's Road to Socialism); it will help place in perspective the marginal role the CPGB saw electoral reform (in the form of PR and the STV not AV) playing.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Yes there was - as indeed is inevitable once you take seriously the "forward of march of labour halted" thesis - but the fact that the "New politics" happened without electoral reform led pretty directly to New Labour and where we are today.

So now FPTP is responsible for New Labour as well as being a significant obstacle to the formation of a mass CP; how much more do you want to heap upon this political superstructure?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[articul8]

I'm not sure why you find it so surprising that all manifestions of electoral politics are mediated - in significant ways - by the electoral system. Of course that isn't to say it is simply an effect or reflection of it (I've not suggested otherwise).

 

[Random]

But how realistically can both parties be swept out of power except by a Labour majority? That strikes me as something of a step forward, although how much depends on what kind of movement is built outside of parliament.

What you are surely talking about is rendering politicians powerless to make attacks on the working class? That won't happen if the Labour party is elected, will it? The only way to make politicians powerless to attack the working class is by organised working class opposition, not placing your hopes in teh reshuffling of one bunch of oxbridge neo liberals for another lot.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

I'm not sure why you find it so surprising that all manifestions of electoral politics are mediated - in significant ways - by the electoral system. Of course that isn't to say it is simply an effect or reflection of it (I've not suggested otherwise).

Stop rowing away; what do 'led pretty directly' and 'significant obstacle' mean to you? Did the CPGB share your estimation of the importance of electoral reform as you have tried to claim; or are you going to distance yourself from that position now?

PR, let alone AV, isn't an indispensable first step to anything. AV is a coalition life line; one you seem determined to preserve for them.

Louis MacNeice

 

[articul8]

No rowing away - I think that the FPTP voting system has had a pretty malign influence on the development of left political representation - which isn't to say that if we only had PR most of our problems would disappear. It's just that reform would open up a space for a different kind of political dynamic. Whether we make anything of that space is down to us. I said the CP advocated STV. They did (and the CPB still do I think). You're right to say it was the MT wing that came to push a hard version of its importance. But it was policy long, long before that.

How is AV a coalition lifeline? A NO vote wouldn't quicked the collapse of the coalition - quite the opposite - without AV cushioning the blow would put the fear of God in Lib Dem MPs who would do anything to avoid the electorate.

 

[articul8]

What you are surely talking about is rendering politicians powerless to make attacks on the working class? That won't happen if the Labour party is elected, will it? The only way to make politicians powerless to attack the working class is by organised working class opposition, not placing your hopes in teh reshuffling of one bunch of oxbridge neo liberals for another lot.

As i hope I made clear I don't think that *simply* replacing this lot with a majority Labour government is anything like enough. But the fact it's not sufficient doesn't mean it's not in some sense necessary. You surely don't believe it is of no consequence whether Cameron is elected with a majority or whether Labour is?

 

[Streathamite]

Ta for the info. When was this? Before, during or after the Liberal-SDP merger?

during and after, as the right of the party increased its' stranglehold

 

[Random]

As i hope I made clear I don't think that *simply* replacing this lot with a majority Labour government is anything like enough. But the fact it's not sufficient doesn't mean it's not in some sense necessary. You surely don't believe it is of no consequence whether Cameron is elected with a majority or whether Labour is?

I would rather have a weak neo liberal tory government in power, crippled by working class oppositon, than a strong neo liberal labour government, strengthened by 'left' members like you.

 

[Random]

It's just that reform would open up a space for a different kind of political dynamic.

"It's just that if we had a cart it would increase our chances of getting a horse."

 

[Louis MacNeice]

No rowing away - I think that the FPTP voting system has had a pretty malign influence on the development of left political representation - which isn't to say that if we only had PR most of our problems would disappear. It's just that reform would open up a space for a different kind of political dynamic. Whether we make anything of that space is down to us. I said the CP advocated STV. They did (and the CPB still do I think). You're right to say it was the MT wing that came to push a hard version of its importance. But it was policy long, long before that.

How is AV a coalition lifeline? A NO vote wouldn't quicked the collapse of the coalition - quite the opposite - without AV cushioning the blow would put the fear of God in Lib Dem MPs who would do anything to avoid the electorate.

I know what the CPGB/CPB policy was and is, but unlike the line you seem to be pushing, their appreciation of the importance of PR/STV is that it is marginal in relation to much much greater economic factors.

AV is a life line for the coalition because without it the Lib Dems will have sold their soul for nothing more than whipping boy/junior partner ministerial positions. Some of the top of the party could easily cope with this, but the party as a whole will be severely damaged both internally (why are we Lib Dems?) and externally (lack of trustworthiness and poor judgment).

Louis MacNeice

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Is this tory govt weak, though? It seems very strong to me, looking like it might be able to push through legislation effectively abolishing govt funding of universities. This current coalition seems like the worst of all worlds to me. A minority tory administration would have been far preferable.

 

[frogwoman]

but part of that surely is that labour aren't even bothering to even seem like they're opposing anything.

 

[Random]

Is this tory govt weak, though?

Wasn't saying it already was, just saying that effective working class opposition is the way to go, whether it's labour or tories

 

[trevhagl]

but part of that surely is that labour aren't even bothering to even seem like they're opposing anything.

our optimism didn't last long did it.

saw Vince cable at the dispatch box the other day and although i don't like him or any other Lib Dem/Tory at least he sounded like he meant it. Labour on the other hand "oh yes we will support you hammer the disabled"

cringeworthy

 

[articul8]

Wasn't saying it already was, just saying that effective working class opposition is the way to go, whether it's labour or tories

and who here is saying "nah, let's just get a Labour government elected" and that'll do the trick? Certainly not what I've been saying.

 

[articul8]

"It's just that if we had a cart it would increase our chances of getting a horse."

each electoral system shapes and constrains the methods of all those parties fighting to achieve representation under it.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

except the carts don't beget horses, whereas all parties with electoral representation are - have their methods determined at least in part (not aas direct causal result, but nevertheless...) as a product of an electoral system.

For crying out loud please please please re-write that!

Cheers - Louis (Prisoner of Love) MacNeice

 

[articul8]

done