Funnily enoguh I’m in a Labour safe seat and commented in another post my thiking on the vote:
I was gonna vote Green but they’re so non-existant in my constituency I may vote Lib Dem who are 4th. It’s a Labour safe seat so it’s not handing it to the Tories to vote my conscience.
I’m Green economically but Lib Dem socially. Since Lib Dems are higher I’ll put my vote there.
To put it simply I’ll point out on Political Compass that I’m in the lower left quadrant (left-libertarian). The parties that have consistently appeared there are Greens and, yes, Corbyn’s Labour:
To give you an idea of how right-wing Labour really are check this older compass from back in 2010 - Labour and Conservatoives are barely any fucking different:
Labour of 2017 & 2019 offered a genuine change to the political landscape. That’s now gone and Starmer has drifted back to neo-liberal authoritarianism. Th Greens are the only party offering what Labour used to offer.
There’s no clearer example of the rightward shift of the Overton window than look at how policies have morphed over to the right in those graphics. Compare them to parties in other countries. You’ll see that parties can exist and run a country in the left quadrants without an apocalypse.
There’s also a great video where they did vox pop interviews with members of the ublic asking if they liked “policy X”. Huge amount of support for the policies but when they found out it was a Corbyn’s Labour policy they blanched and changed their mind.
So scrap Corbyn - I don’t care aboiut him personally. I do care about the Labour policies of that period though. They were a genuine fuckign change from the status quo.
I’m sure Starmers Labour will be better than the Tories but not by much. It will just be a slower decline rather than a change of direction.
If pushed, I’d also describe myself as libertarian socialist. Nice to have something in common!
Now, for the diagreements…
The central plank of Labour’s economic policy from Gordon Brown to the present day has been to borrow for investment but not for day-to-day spending. That’s consistently been the argument under Brown, Miliband, Corbyn and Starmer (and Harman, in the two interregnums). The differences after that are really just window dressing and changing with the times. A bit more Green stuff here; a bit more planning reform there. Starmer’s current trade union policies are more pro-union than Corbyn’s were, they’re just dressed in a nice suit!
The Greens are, frankly, just dreadful. They are just a Green NIMBY party. They even oppose pro-environmental policies if they’ll spoil some rich guy’s view and that is a reflection of who they are as a party, in terms of their members and their financial backers.
We need to not get caught up in rhetoric and presentation. What we have is what we’ve always had: one party funded by trade unions and co-ops and a bunch of others funded by the wealthy. That’s the key difference.
Thanks for your response which is much better than the tit who simply commented “Political Compass == Shit” with nothing to add.
The central plank of Labour’s economic policy from Gordon Brown to the present day has been to borrow for investment but not for day-to-day spending.
That may have been the case but not anymore that I can see. Why have Labour walked back and reversed all of their pledges on infrastructure spending (E.g. environment pledge, HS2, etc)? Because they just want to continue the same policies as the Tories but more competently.
The differences after that are really just window dressing and changing with the times.
If by chaning with the times you mean Starmer admitting we’ve got to carry on Tory policy because the country has no money - then yeah I guess. But that['s not “window dressing”. Actually, no, it IS window dressing. It’s a Tory wearing a red rose and tie. That’s the window dressing.
I don’t see Nordic-model social democracy here. I see Wes Streeting vowing to “open the door wide to the private sector”. A policy that has been proven detrimental to the NHS since it was floated by Major and implemented by Blair.
Wes Streeting looks at Singapore as a model for the UK NHS. A country with great hospitals but it’s also a low-tax, one-party dictatorship with eye-watering income inequality. That’d be like looking at North Korea’s labour camps and saying we need to import their excellant work ethic.
Starmer’s current trade union policies are more pro-union than Corbyn’s were
I’m wondering if we’re talking about the same Labour party. You mean Starmer who veto’d public support of the Unions? Starmer who sacked MPs for speaking on it or showing at pickets? I must admit I initially bought the bullshit he spouted about Labour needing to represent the whole country (business and unions) but seeing the suffering going on in the NHS and the shit doctors and nurses are going through - he’s morally wrong. It’s not about being a “party of government” it’s about makign a moral stand for what’s right. Something Starmer seems allergic to.
We need to not get caught up in rhetoric and presentation
I used to agree. I used to say Starmer is just saying what he needs to win. But I can’t anymore after a year of him flip-flopping, reversals, transphobia, kissing corporate arse, banning open union support, party purges of anyone left of centre, Palestine, privatisationpolicy
You’re absolutely right it’s just window dressing - They’re just competent Tories.
In fact there’s actually Tories that are more left wing than current Labour. One Nation Tories like Theresa May wanted to have workers reps on company boards until it got shot down by all parties concerned. Heaven forbid we implement a policy that has worked well on the “Commie continent”.
In a decade when the country is in a worse state people will scrabble around wondering who to vote for and their only choice will be - the same shits with a different coloured tie.
I’m sorry to be blunt, but most of what you’ve written here just isn’t true. Labour are entirely committed to greater spending on rail and environmental policies, and that’s exactly what Labour politicians are doing, right now, in Wales, London and Manchester (and everywhere else they’re in power).
What they’re not committed to is doing so through the kind of borrowing that will cause interest rates to surge and lead to people defaulting on their mortgages. This isn’t hypothetical: it’s what happened when Liz Truss committed to over-borrowing with no clear end in sight. If that means Labour spend ‘only’ £20 billion a year on green policies, will that make much of a difference compared with £28 billion? I think not - certainly not compared to the difference that would be made by causing mass loan defaults!
The last Labour government enormously improved the NHS. We had dozens of new hospitals, we had well-trained staff, we had the lowest waiting lists in history. To say, as you have, that Blair’s policies ‘proved detrimental’ isn’t true. It was the Andrew Lansley reforms under David Cameron that wrecked it, and the consistent underspending has kept it in a poor state (and, of course, Covid played a role, which can’t really be helped).
Regarding the unions, I’m afraid you are being distracted by the window dressing. Does an MP on a picket line help a union win a dispute? No: it’s all for show. The actual policies, to have collective bargaining across every sector, empower unions to negotiate fair pay deals, ensure reps get facility time, introduce secure electronic ballotting, etc., etc.: that’s what will make the difference. It is not ‘a fact’ that there are Tories more leftwing than Labour on any of these policies (or, indeed, on any policy whatsoever).
All this other stuff about ties and whatever is just empty rhetoric. People have been saying this about Labour for a century, but every time Labour get into power we make the country better. Now, that is a fact. You keep talking about how bad the NHS is now, and you’re right to. But what you’re implictly comparing it with is the NHS under Labour - when it was good!
If the country votes Labour at the next election, which is in no way guaranteed, we’ll get green investment, green planning reform and stronger worker protections. Those are all worth fighting for.
EDIT: Sorry, lastly, as to your point about doing what’s right: would it be ‘right’ to lose the election on a ‘moral’ platform and thus achieve nothing for anyone? It is morally right for politicians to compromise and negotiate. That is actually the thing we want from them; it’s the whole point of a parliamentary system in a democracy.
Also, Political Compass is a bit rubbish. Sorry. It’s a fun game, but it’s not something on which we should base our actual actions.
It’s based on responses (policies) to a standardised test. It’s also set on two axes so it’s possible for a party such as UKIP for example to appear left-wing economically than you’d think because some of their policies were made to attract the low income working class vote.
Which is precisely what the BNP did (several left-wing policies) and in fact it’s what the OG Nazi’s did by adding “Socialist” to their name and initially attracting socialists before the Night of the Long Knives when they purged all left wingers.
So no, it’s not bullshit. You just don’t know how it works. I’m not suggesting it’s perfect and like I pointed out it doesn’t predict a party’s future changes pr give a detailed account of policies. It’s a rough snapshot that gives a taste of a party’s placement on two axes.
But you took one look at the fucking pictures and assumed you know best. Which is the level of political nous I’ve come to expect from other Brits. So do jog on.
I am in a safe Labour seat but I’ll be voting Green. Labour lost my vote when they continued drifting to the right.
At the end of the day they need to win the election.
At this point I’d 100% take a shitty labour government that’s compromising, because it’s the first step to moving things back to the left.
If we had a better voting system then go for it, but I just think it’s silly for someone to waste a vote (if they aren’t in a safe seat).
Funnily enoguh I’m in a Labour safe seat and commented in another post my thiking on the vote:
“Drifting to the right” relative to what? Corbyn?
To put it simply I’ll point out on Political Compass that I’m in the lower left quadrant (left-libertarian). The parties that have consistently appeared there are Greens and, yes, Corbyn’s Labour:
https://www.politicalcompass.org/uk2019
To give you an idea of how right-wing Labour really are check this older compass from back in 2010 - Labour and Conservatoives are barely any fucking different:
https://www.politicalcompass.org/ukparties2010
Labour of 2017 & 2019 offered a genuine change to the political landscape. That’s now gone and Starmer has drifted back to neo-liberal authoritarianism. Th Greens are the only party offering what Labour used to offer.
There’s no clearer example of the rightward shift of the Overton window than look at how policies have morphed over to the right in those graphics. Compare them to parties in other countries. You’ll see that parties can exist and run a country in the left quadrants without an apocalypse.
The establishment eviscerated Corbyn massively because it rocked the boat far too much. Even the ‘left wing’ Guardian was found to be biased against him. London School of Economics did a great study into it: https://www.lse.ac.uk/media-and-communications/research/research-projects/representations-of-jeremy-corbyn
There’s also a great video where they did vox pop interviews with members of the ublic asking if they liked “policy X”. Huge amount of support for the policies but when they found out it was a Corbyn’s Labour policy they blanched and changed their mind.
So scrap Corbyn - I don’t care aboiut him personally. I do care about the Labour policies of that period though. They were a genuine fuckign change from the status quo.
I’m sure Starmers Labour will be better than the Tories but not by much. It will just be a slower decline rather than a change of direction.
Socially I’m more Lib Dem but economically I’m old Labour. Black Rose Labour (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism)
If pushed, I’d also describe myself as libertarian socialist. Nice to have something in common!
Now, for the diagreements…
The central plank of Labour’s economic policy from Gordon Brown to the present day has been to borrow for investment but not for day-to-day spending. That’s consistently been the argument under Brown, Miliband, Corbyn and Starmer (and Harman, in the two interregnums). The differences after that are really just window dressing and changing with the times. A bit more Green stuff here; a bit more planning reform there. Starmer’s current trade union policies are more pro-union than Corbyn’s were, they’re just dressed in a nice suit!
The Greens are, frankly, just dreadful. They are just a Green NIMBY party. They even oppose pro-environmental policies if they’ll spoil some rich guy’s view and that is a reflection of who they are as a party, in terms of their members and their financial backers.
We need to not get caught up in rhetoric and presentation. What we have is what we’ve always had: one party funded by trade unions and co-ops and a bunch of others funded by the wealthy. That’s the key difference.
Thanks for your response which is much better than the tit who simply commented “Political Compass == Shit” with nothing to add.
That may have been the case but not anymore that I can see. Why have Labour walked back and reversed all of their pledges on infrastructure spending (E.g. environment pledge, HS2, etc)? Because they just want to continue the same policies as the Tories but more competently.
If by chaning with the times you mean Starmer admitting we’ve got to carry on Tory policy because the country has no money - then yeah I guess. But that['s not “window dressing”. Actually, no, it IS window dressing. It’s a Tory wearing a red rose and tie. That’s the window dressing.
I don’t see Nordic-model social democracy here. I see Wes Streeting vowing to “open the door wide to the private sector”. A policy that has been proven detrimental to the NHS since it was floated by Major and implemented by Blair.
Wes Streeting looks at Singapore as a model for the UK NHS. A country with great hospitals but it’s also a low-tax, one-party dictatorship with eye-watering income inequality. That’d be like looking at North Korea’s labour camps and saying we need to import their excellant work ethic.
I’m wondering if we’re talking about the same Labour party. You mean Starmer who veto’d public support of the Unions? Starmer who sacked MPs for speaking on it or showing at pickets? I must admit I initially bought the bullshit he spouted about Labour needing to represent the whole country (business and unions) but seeing the suffering going on in the NHS and the shit doctors and nurses are going through - he’s morally wrong. It’s not about being a “party of government” it’s about makign a moral stand for what’s right. Something Starmer seems allergic to.
I used to agree. I used to say Starmer is just saying what he needs to win. But I can’t anymore after a year of him flip-flopping, reversals, transphobia, kissing corporate arse, banning open union support, party purges of anyone left of centre, Palestine, privatisationpolicy
You’re absolutely right it’s just window dressing - They’re just competent Tories.
In fact there’s actually Tories that are more left wing than current Labour. One Nation Tories like Theresa May wanted to have workers reps on company boards until it got shot down by all parties concerned. Heaven forbid we implement a policy that has worked well on the “Commie continent”.
In a decade when the country is in a worse state people will scrabble around wondering who to vote for and their only choice will be - the same shits with a different coloured tie.
I’m sorry to be blunt, but most of what you’ve written here just isn’t true. Labour are entirely committed to greater spending on rail and environmental policies, and that’s exactly what Labour politicians are doing, right now, in Wales, London and Manchester (and everywhere else they’re in power).
What they’re not committed to is doing so through the kind of borrowing that will cause interest rates to surge and lead to people defaulting on their mortgages. This isn’t hypothetical: it’s what happened when Liz Truss committed to over-borrowing with no clear end in sight. If that means Labour spend ‘only’ £20 billion a year on green policies, will that make much of a difference compared with £28 billion? I think not - certainly not compared to the difference that would be made by causing mass loan defaults!
The last Labour government enormously improved the NHS. We had dozens of new hospitals, we had well-trained staff, we had the lowest waiting lists in history. To say, as you have, that Blair’s policies ‘proved detrimental’ isn’t true. It was the Andrew Lansley reforms under David Cameron that wrecked it, and the consistent underspending has kept it in a poor state (and, of course, Covid played a role, which can’t really be helped).
Regarding the unions, I’m afraid you are being distracted by the window dressing. Does an MP on a picket line help a union win a dispute? No: it’s all for show. The actual policies, to have collective bargaining across every sector, empower unions to negotiate fair pay deals, ensure reps get facility time, introduce secure electronic ballotting, etc., etc.: that’s what will make the difference. It is not ‘a fact’ that there are Tories more leftwing than Labour on any of these policies (or, indeed, on any policy whatsoever).
All this other stuff about ties and whatever is just empty rhetoric. People have been saying this about Labour for a century, but every time Labour get into power we make the country better. Now, that is a fact. You keep talking about how bad the NHS is now, and you’re right to. But what you’re implictly comparing it with is the NHS under Labour - when it was good!
If the country votes Labour at the next election, which is in no way guaranteed, we’ll get green investment, green planning reform and stronger worker protections. Those are all worth fighting for.
EDIT: Sorry, lastly, as to your point about doing what’s right: would it be ‘right’ to lose the election on a ‘moral’ platform and thus achieve nothing for anyone? It is morally right for politicians to compromise and negotiate. That is actually the thing we want from them; it’s the whole point of a parliamentary system in a democracy.
Also, Political Compass is a bit rubbish. Sorry. It’s a fun game, but it’s not something on which we should base our actual actions.
The Political Compass is a joke though.
Did you miss the bit where it says Labour were more right-wing than the BNP?
It’s based on responses (policies) to a standardised test. It’s also set on two axes so it’s possible for a party such as UKIP for example to appear left-wing economically than you’d think because some of their policies were made to attract the low income working class vote.
Which is precisely what the BNP did (several left-wing policies) and in fact it’s what the OG Nazi’s did by adding “Socialist” to their name and initially attracting socialists before the Night of the Long Knives when they purged all left wingers.
So no, it’s not bullshit. You just don’t know how it works. I’m not suggesting it’s perfect and like I pointed out it doesn’t predict a party’s future changes pr give a detailed account of policies. It’s a rough snapshot that gives a taste of a party’s placement on two axes.
But you took one look at the fucking pictures and assumed you know best. Which is the level of political nous I’ve come to expect from other Brits. So do jog on.
I’m a NZ citizen and left wing voter. UK Labour look hopelessly centrist to me. Corbyn was obviously more LW