Are Blairites really centrist Tories? | UK Politics | The New Statesman
Вставка
- Опубліковано 2 вер 2023
- What is the difference between a soft Tory, a Lib Dem, and a Blairite?
Subscribe here: / @newstatesman
The answer comes down to power, upbringing, and tradition.
Rachel Cunliffe, Freddie Hayward, and Zoë Grünewald tackle a listener’s question on what makes a centrist politician choose the party they represent.
-
The New Statesman podcast is now on UA-cam. Anoosh Chakelian and New Statesman colleagues including political editor Andrew Marr discuss the latest in UK politics news, helping you understand the forces shaping British politics today.
--
The New Statesman brings you unrivalled analysis of of the latest UK and international politics. On our UA-cam channel you’ll find insight on the top news and global current affairs stories, as well as insightful interviews with politicians, advisers and leading political thinkers, to help you understand the political and economic forces shaping the world.
With regular contributions from our writers including Political Editor Andrew Marr and Anoosh Chakelian - host of the New Statesman podcast - we’ll help you understand the world of politics and global affairs from Westminster to Washington and beyond.
Subscribe on UA-cam: / @newstatesman
Sign up to Morning Call, the daily UK politics newsletter from the New Statesman: morningcall.substack.com
Subscribe to the New Statesman from just £1 per week: www.newstatesman.com/podcasto...
Someone really needs to have a word with Zoë. Firstly, Lee Anderson is from Nottinghamshire. Nottinghamshire is not by anyone's definition "northern". It is firmly in the Midlands. Secondly, it should come as no surprise to anyone that a miner from Nottinghamshire should end up in the Tory party. There's a very long history of right wing politics in Nottinghamshire mining areas, dating back to at least the 1920s when the notorious George Spencer, MP for Broxtowe, split the Nottinghamshire miners from the national movement because he didn't support their strike. This was repeated more bitterly in the 1980s when the Nottinghamshire miners broke away from the NUM and were seen as having collaborated with the Thatcher government. To this day, many miners involved in the 1980s strike regard the Nottinghamshire miners as traitors, scabs and Thatcher stooges.
This is the new statesman, basically they say nothing with an extraordinarily high word count.... Fluff fluff fluff
MIners in Nottingham of a long and disgraceful history of betraying other working class folk.
I was born in Nottinghamshire and have lived here for much of my life. Ashfield seat was created in 1955 and has been Labour for nearly all of its history, with the exception of 77-79 and Lee Anderson in 2019. Anderson is formerly Labour and will lose in 24/25- he only really got in due to Brexit, of which there was a huge supporting vote in Ashfield (very large older, working class voting base). Nottinghamshire is in the East Midlands region, but the far north of the county is further north than Sheffield and Liverpool! The northern extremities are pretty much on the same latitude as Manchester city centre. Economically and socially Nottinghamshire shares more in common with the north than the south. The Trent is a real socio/economic divide, with the likes of Rushcliffe in the south bearing very little similarity with the likes of Ashfield, Mansfield and Worksop. Nottingham, the west and the urban north areas of the county are definitely part of the historic "Red Wall". Much of the seats will return to it in 24/25. The great Tory stalwart Dennis Skinner hailed from Clay Cross and was MP for Bolsover for 49 years, which borders Ashfield, Clay Cross itself is within spitting distance of the likes of Huthwaite and Sutton-in-Ashfield.
Fiscal left-wingers & social conservatives . . . . if the renewed SDP - disgraceful as it is - could stand in 50-100 seats around places like Corby and the place where Sports Direct have their massive warehouse whose name I can't recall, they'd win a decent % of them.
@@fattypark Doncaster, which is north of Nottinghamshire, is nearer to Luton than Newcastle. Nottingham is nearer to London. Nottinghamshire's is not by anyone's definition northern. You may be confusing working class culture with northern. They are not the same thing by a very long stretch. I'm sure you have a lot in common with many people from the south west too, but that does not make you south western. There's a strong argument to be had that geographically, Manchester is in central England.
Great to hear from secret source Rory Stewart
Florence of Belgravia.
Studying history and observation has given me an understanding of which party has been on the side of conserving the traditional inequities in society and striving to divide working people to achieve this. The difference between Tories and Labour is that although they might both move to the center to gain swing votes in swing constituencies the Tories will move back to the right pretty swiftly because there power base remains strong meaning the centre moves to the right. Labour on the other hand seek to suppress their left leaning base to stay in the center but are inevitably pulled to the right as the centre ground shifts.
In the 1950s the Conservative Party had 3 million individual members, amounting to around 1 in 10 of the electorate. The Labour Party then had 1 million individual members. During this period, Conservative governments largely accepted the 1945 Attlee reforms, and governed from the centre. Today Conservative membership is down to just 172,000, while Labour is at 400,000.
It’s important to understand that the Attlee government, though economically left-wing on nationalisation and the NHS, would seem socially conservative by modern standards. It represented what Maurice Glasman would today call “blue Labour”. It was the first Wilson government which really took up socially liberal causes, abolishing the death penalty, and legalising male homosexual relations, and abortion.
@@georgesdelatourAtlee’s government did what they did in 45 society wasnt in the modern sixties era for him to do what Wilson did. Once the 60’s were in there was no going back to the post war attitudes. Wilson acted accordingly with the changing times
I totally agree on this one. And you can further see this in issues like the breakup of the UK and the, for me, unavoidable independence of Scotland
@@georgesdelatour But remember being a member of the Tory party is a individual thing that some can wish to do ,but most Labour party members are associated to the party by being a Union member - just saying ?.
@@yorkiegilly4355 Yes. My understanding is that the 1950s figure is not counting union members.
The Conservative party is rooted in land ownership and deference to established authority, the Liberal party in free trade and radicalism, and the Labour party in common ownership and redistribution. This will tend to be how those people that make an intellectual rather than emotional choice position themselves. That can change over time as ones internal debate progresses.
There are so many other aspects to policy and governance not addressed by these principals that it leaves huge scope for diversity in any of these parties. For example none directly address defence excepting perhaps an element of internationalism in the Labour movement, none addresses immigration except perhaps a Liberal freedom of action for the individual stance and there really isn't anything upon which to base environmental policy or health policy. Hence why people in supposedly the same party can have diametrically opposed opinions on so many topics. It is also the reason why parties founded with objectives outside the economic sphere tend to flounder and ultimately dissolve because the economy and constitutional positions direct every day life.
Good remarks but both the Conservative Party and Labour are fully paid up members of the neoliberalist approach. Both suck up to the establishment and presently there is nothing between them on policy. Only some of the smaller parties promote proportional representation which is why I'm voting Liberal Democrat next time. Im sick of voting Green and never having my vote matter! The Greens and Liberal Democrats are the most radical parties on the environment which is why I've changed. The 2 main parties are a scandalous sham
The old definition of the Conservative party ( via the Tories ) in Encyclopaedia Britannica cited the tenets of Toryism being based on church, state, and the monarchy, with a strong adherence to the military, so I would vouch they do have a stronger stance on the military, although not necessarily a healthy one.
Interestingly, the pillars of their political beliefs are all things which rely on authority as opposed to rationale, a bit like the Conservatives. They would much rather rely on the fallacy of authority than a sound argument, which is unsurprising given their roots as cited in your first sentence.
Pragmatism and healthy debate? Doesn't sound much like the modern Conservatives.
I think they were genuinely a broad church up until the end of Theresa May's leadership. Much of their liberal wing was wiped out during BoJo's tenure (or at least the most vocal elements of it), and under Sunak they're either too quiet or too few to form a meaningful voting bloc, so their policies are inevitably catering further and further to the socially conservative right of the party.
@@Scruffed Yes. Brexit...an issue of absolutes where there can be middle ground...brought American style absolutism into British politics.
Whilst we have a FPTP electoral system this roundabout of puerile unrepresentative governance will continue. PR needs to be introduced NOW.
So agree and that is why I'll vote Liberal Democrat in a Labour held constituency of Canterbury. This is a 2 x University city but also very middle class. Poverty is more hidden in rural areas. I hate this Conservative Government more than anything but I am not voting Labour because they offer only more of the same won't offer PR! The Labour Party are very neoliberalist and pink Tories at the end of the day.
@@rolandrothwell4840 sorry guys. Australia has the same problems and we've had PR for ever. It's not a solution to bad governance. It's only truly effective in selecting an upper house, which you don't have (well, an elected upper house I mean).
@@jonquills66 our UK 2 party system has given us the choice of a Conservative party which is right wing and a Labour Party which talks softer, but acts the same way. Both (never say it out loud) protect the money of the amazingly super rich and venture capitalists. Both never challenge the establishment of church, monarchy and military. Both are committed to neoliberalism. So the public have no choice just a different team. Its not good enough. We need to close the House of Lords down. We need PR and hopefully a more representative government. At the moment we have con men doing the work of the ruling elites.
In the UK, even today, a strong element of support for Labour and the Tories is tribal. The Tories have a base of around 150 to 200 seats that will vote Tory come what may due to people in those areas being brought up Tory. The same for Labour, there are places that will vote Labour because "people around here always vote Labour". It will be interesting to see if this tribalism continues. In the past voting Labour or Tory was almost as much about class and culture rather than ideology. If you grew up in a working class area, particularly a more heavy industrial area, then you would vote Labour. If you grew up in a more suburban or rural area, more middle class, more service sector, you voted Tory. You could be quite a liberal person, but if you came from a "posh" background you became a Tory. You could be quite socially conservative but if your dad was a coal miner you became Labour. Although, there's still plenty of posh Tories and a few working class Labour MPs still knocking around, the class dynamics of our politics seems to have broken down a lot. And in the UK, that's a massive change compared to politics from 1918 until recently.
It's not so much that the class dynamic has broken down.
It's that working class people have been shut out of politics almost completely since Thatcherism took over.
Getting kicked out of the Labour Party for not being socialist enough? Don't make me laugh. Might have been relevant once but the opposite is true now. And as for Tories being more traditional because they want to maintain the traditions which make this country great... well, they are more traditional but only because it serves their own interests. If anything, they stick to tradition irrespective of what it does, which represents either self-interest or else a lack of intelligence.
How are the Conservatives the natural party of government? How often do they achieve even 50% of the popular vote? They are elected because we have an undemocratic electoral system.
From a report in The Guardian:
Analysis by the political commentator and pollster Peter Kellner shows that if constituencies were determined according to the size of their populations rather than the number of registered voters - as happens in most other advanced democracies - then the number of extra Labour seats created would cut the Tories’ Commons majority by 22.
Using the latest population figures and demographic data released last month by the House of Commons and the latest data for registered voters, Kellner concludes that Labour suffers in a way that clearly damages its chances of election success.
Had our boundaries been drawn according to best international practice, the Conservatives might well have failed to form a government after the 2010 and 2017 elections, and fallen short of outright victory in 2015.”
You obviously think this argument is absolutely devastating; and, in good faith, I just don’t understand it.
On average, each constituency has around 72,000 people eligible to vote. There are anomalies. For instance, the Isle of Wight has too many voters for one constituency, but too few for two; it’s wound up as one super-large constituency for now.
But supposing one constituency has a lot of people who aren’t allowed to vote living there. Maybe it has a large prison containing non-voting prisoners; maybe it has a large number of foreign nationals who aren’t allowed to vote. Why would it be fairer to make a constituency with a smaller electorate but a large non-voting population? I guess I’m just not understanding why that’s a brilliant idea.
If you want to argue that some of these non-voters should be allowed to vote, fair enough. But if we both agree that they can’t and shouldn’t be allowed to vote, why count them for electoral boundary purposes?
@@georgesdelatourWell the Labour Party have been spouting about allowing 16 y.o. the vote ,so it will give you something to look forward to ,because it"s clear that our politicians are not so sure about the P.R. route of government and the 16 vote will then give Labour the upper hand - will that suit you ?.
@@yorkiegilly4355 I don't support lowering the franchise to 16. We select juries based on the electoral roll, so 16-year-old voters logically means 16-year-old jurists.
@@georgesdelatourIn that case we should stop taxing 16 year olds.
@@martineyles It isn’t practical to exempt 16 year olds from sales taxes. I suppose we could link the right to vote to being an income tax payer, if that’s what you want.
I grew up with political giants like Tony Benn, Barbara Castle and Harold Wilson. I couldn’t imagine them being Lib Dem’s as they had real conviction
The issues are more fundamental: 1. Is Westminster fit for purpose? The country is hugely underperforming in all sectors and I cannot see radical change under Labour, activism here or there; 2. we were served a contradiction: Britain claims to have a two party system when however one party is "natural party of government" and the other is "permanent (and suspiciously activist) opposition". That is exactly the system Russia has with the weak proviso that the UK opposition is allowed brief periods in government; 3. the Conservative Party does not "conserve" British institutions. The NHS underperformance is a crisis of Conservative reorganisation, as is the nationalisation by stealth of Britain's railways, the privatisation of essential utilities, even the scandal at the postal service; the mediocrity of local government (beginning to be displaced by an effectiveness initiated by Blair's devolution policies, as carried forward by the Cameron government). In my sixty years I have seen more British institutions which were working perfectly well broken up and reinvented by Tory ideologists than could ever support the view that the Conservative Party conserves. It even placed a figure at the very centre of government whose motto was "move fast and break things" with a "will to disrupt". That is the opposite of Conservatism.
The right are supposed to be pronomian: that is, they are for traditional forms, norms and mores, and the prescriptive authority of traditional institutions. The left are supposed to be antinomian: they are wary of tradition, because they seek a new dispensation built from the ground up according to allegedly better first principles.
Things have never been quite as simple as that. The “creative destruction” of capitalism is an antinomian force, and when the right identifies itself primarily with unrestrained capitalism - as it seemed to do in the 1980s - it too becomes antinomian. And the pre-1968 left always included various authentic strains of pronomian traditionalism alongside the Jacobinism, such as William Morris’s Arts and Crafts movement and A.L. Lloyd’s folk revivalism. The Trades Union movement has residual pronomian elements, such as the annual pilgrimage to Tolpuddle.
Even if this right-pronomian vs left-antinomian split has always been rough around the edges, it used to work more or less. It doesn’t now. The left are now strong in the traditional institutions they have captured from the right, from the police to the Church of England to the National Trust; meanwhile the right are now strong among the “gammon” proletarian voters they have captured from the left. Does this mean the left are now fully pronomian and the right antinomian? Not quite. The left wears the pronomian shell of the institutions it has captured as a defensive exoskeleton, like a hermit crab inside a mollusc shell. But its antinomian instincts are still vigorous underneath. The right, sensing that its formerly cherished institutions are now in enemy hands, increasingly relies on antinomian populist agitation, hoping to outflank the left at the ballot box. It’s not just an electoral strategy. It’s partly an authentic antinomian conversion. For the right, it feels that left-captured institutions always get turned inside out; in which case they’d prefer to see them die altogether. The result is a raised level of antinomianism - effectively, a raised level of entropy - flowing across the political system.
It's kinda cute hearing kids discussing party politics. They grasp some of the detail, too, but it's a bit 'sixth form' and fails to grasp the complicated dynamics. The idea of asking why centrist Tories shouldn't join Labour or LibDem: was this asked with or without irony? Don't they realise, for example, that Thatcher in some sense 'created' Blair? Think about the ways in which the Left has been brought back to the centre by Tory ideas rather than the idea that the Tories are somehow being 'pulled towards liberalism'. And have fun defining what liberalism even means these days: liberalism would be too rightwing for many Leftists.
Exactly what I was thinking. Zoe in particular seemed clueless. She didn't seem to have a clue about the right wing history of Nottinghamshire miners where Lee Anderson is from. And calling Nottinghamshire northern (????)
@@th8257 I wonder if he was a strike breaker?
They have to start somewhere. Remember a lot of what they talk about is history for them. They were in nappies when Blair was in power. So it's a bit more abstract.
@@Joe-og6br Excuse me, but they are talking about history! My whole point is that they are talking about something they appear to have entirely misapprehended. Sounds like you agree with me.
Interesting how the differences between Labour and the conservatives are discussed and the conclusion seems to be that there are no actual policy differences, just how the two club’s present themselves. The house is falling down and the voters are left with a decision on what wallpaper to buy.
So few people get this but it bears up to proper analysis if you look behind the posturing.
use paint instead.
@@archvaldor Bollocks, everyone gets it.
"Politicians are all the same" is a phrase you hear on the doorstep, in the workplace, among your friends and family, absolutely all the time.
Are Centrist Tories really Blairite Labour? Asked who was the best Labour Prime Minister the UK never had, Clement Atlee was reported to have said "Harold MacMillan". Apparently, in the 1930s MacMillan had been in conversations about crossing the floor of the Commons from the Tories to Labour. But for the outbreak of WWII, MacMillan would have been on the Labour benches and, according to Atlee, Prime Minister instead of him in 1945.
Clem Attlee - gave the UK the NHS & gave the UK nuclear weapons.
Yes absoluuuutely lol 😂😂🤣🤣. I have been saying this for years. The British electorates are stuck with the same just different political badge 😅
Thanks for posting.
I don’t think it’s correct to say that people don’t shop around. I grew up in a Tory safe seat but with parents who have switched between labour, Lib Dems, and green. I suppose I’ve followed them in a way - in 2010 I was at school and remember preferring Lib Dems (which I instantly regretted in 2011 with the tuition fees). Since then I always read the manifestos and decide on that basis - I voted labour from then on, became a member for 6 years, then left and am considering voting Green. Similarly, I had a lot of school friends who grew up as Tories but switched to labour during the Corbyn years and slightly before.
A local Tory councillor I know personally told me he was a Tory so he could get on committees in the council. Independents find it much harder to be chosen to be on a seat. He said his views align better with Tory than labour so he chose blue
So glad to see that Freddie H. decided to undo that second top button after all.
Fascinating - Zoë's report in particular. I'm a Canadian Rory fan, because he aligns with classical liberalism. That might be what people refer to as centrism in this binary, tribal world of legacy and social media. Maybe centrists don't advance the causes (profits) at either end, but don't let their quiet nature fool you. Recent US polling revealed that 40-49% of respondents ID as indie or unaffiliated. Question is, do they vote?
Err no, classical liberals are right wing... Adam smith and all that. It's social liberals (Keynsians) that are the centrists, whilst socialists are on the left.
An absolutely critical question in the run-up to the 2024 US election...
Most ‘independent’ voters in America are not actually independent. They might dislike the parties, but they usually strongly prefer one over the other. And given how high negative partisanship is right now, they are increasingly inclined to vote in order to stop the party they dislike more from winning.
They might conclude there is no point under first-past-the-post voting system, that only works where there are two parties or candidates (which is why just two parties dominate in US politics). As soon as a third or fourth candidate enters, all are disadvantaged because the vote is split, but the arithmetic winner takes all (wins the seat). This wouldn't happen under a properly organised proportional voting system.
People might converge on policy, but still have different philosophies and values. Those differences affect how they prioritize various objectives. Those differences also affect which sorts of crazies they wish to tolerate on a regular basis.
There’s also an evident class divide. The high % of tory cabinet if not MPs who are private educated vs labour. They come from wealth often clearly and that’s where that reverence for tradition, heirachy , order comes from, look at where some of them went to school! So state schools are rarely on the conservative agenda vs persecuting immigrants.
There are about 4 working class people in both Tory and Labour, so you should show your working.
Great prez! Esp. like the chat about "tribalism" in UK MPs. If you don't do tribalism, you can't be an MP. Maybe trashing FPTP would diminish this obnoxious feature.
No, we have PR in Australia but are still cursed with tribes
I don’t think it would. If you stand for office you have to pick a party and stick with that party no matter what (I know defections happen but they are rare and normally result in the defector losing their seat). That means you naturally end up being tribal, as you stay with a party even if your views no longer align with the party’s. I doubt that changing the voting system would affect this. In fact, in a system like PR where people vote for a party rather than a particular candidate it can become even more tribal, as people are in Parliament purely because of the votes their party received.
We should be less tribal like proportional Israel😊
Didn't Lee Anderson get kicked out of the Labour Party for some rather twatty behaviour. These people seemed to be talking about him.as though he left Labour to.join the Tories over his own free will.
They seem utterly clueless about a lot of things, not least the very right wing history of Nottinghamshire miners. And Zoe calling Nottinghamshire northern (????) A-level naivety.
A lot go into politics specifically for the very high salary, relative to the pay of most other jobs and the low qualification entry requirements; basically being a good talker but in reality not even that. For instance Grant Shapps's highest qualification was an HND in Business and Finance but somehow he's had 5 Cabinet posts this year!
Most are happy to tow the party-of-choice's party line and find it easy to coast along for decades in Westminster enjoying the free or subsidised bars and restaurants, expenses and not-very-demanding workload (compared to nurses, doctors, teachers Amazon warehouse workers, etc). Because they're not very busy they can usually fit in one or two well paid part-time jobs to boost their income and, if their face fits and they reach the top of the party, they can look forward to extremely well paid revolving door opportunities in the business sector in Executive positions on Boards and such like.
Then there are the generous MP's pensions too which must be a big draw for people who are determined to be the allright-Jacks of this world.
I think that is quite a harsh assessment. Yes this may be the case for some, but compared to the salaries that many MPs could earn in other fields (e.g. finance, law etc.) their salary isn’t actually that high. And although you don’t theoretically need any qualifications, it is tough just being selected by your party as a candidate, let alone winning a seat. Being an MP and in particular a minister means you are permanently in the public eye and get very little privacy, as well as facing a lot of abuse. Of course there are MPs who are in politics for the wrong reasons, but I think there are many more who are there primarily for public service and to make a difference, even if I disagree with what they are trying to achieve.
You might choose the best fit party but you still need to get selected to be an MP and that is increasingly difficult in all parties. You need to know your local party and what boxes they want to see ticked and then play the game. It lends itself to insincerity from the outset. And in the age of (anti)social media like twatter, who would want to dive into the sewer unless they have an ulterior motive?? I have a great deal of time for Rory and at the end of the day, I personally feel that it matters what kind of person you are in day to day life, not what you say you believe in. For decades I've heard it said "its all about policies, not personalities" bollocks to that!
It SHOULD be about policies, the main issue is that parties just say what they think you want to hear and frequently ignore policy promises and even just reverse them on a whim.
Truss is a prime example where her policies had zero mandate since it was often opposite of what the Tories won promising under BoJo.
Starmer just spouts anything he thinks will get him closer and lie, break promises or whatever if he thinks it gets him closer to Premiership.
But personalities also don’t matter.
Corbyn was by all accounts exactly the type of person you’d want. Believes strongly in peace but is pragmatic, will to stand up and fight for people suffering, humble and gentle and overwhelmingly loved by his constituents.
All that was spun and used against him as personality is used to disguise, either as a weapon or shield. BoJo had it as a shield for a time to show the counter.
Policies matter so so much, and ‘personalities’ are so easily manipulated.
If we had a Fair Voting system (Proportional Representation) Ruth Davidson, Nick Clegg, Rory Stewart and Zac Goldsmith would be in the same Liberal/Liberal Conservative Party.
Yeah like anyone takes 30p Lee at their word.
Thanks for a really interesting discussion. Would we have an ‘ideologically centrist party’ if we got rid of FPTP and had a form of PR instead? I’ve always felt (coming from a middle-ist / Liberal background) that the mass of the British, of all people, are middle-of-the-road rather than politically motivated. I think this is why even Labour opposes PR. Basically they are scared of middle England.
But center parties tend to do quite poorly in PR systems. There might be a handful of swing voters who are in the center, but most people ultimately at least lean in one direction.
So, what tends to happen (in other European countries that use PR, like Germany) is that instead of having two big-tent parties that contain a very wide range of political views from the centrists/moderates all the way to far left/right extremists, the parties tend instead to split into a large mainstream centre-left party and a large mainstream centre-right party. These tend to form governments in coalitions with other parties.
Simultaneously, there are also two smaller, and less popular but more extreme, left-wing and right-wing parties. In the UK these would be the equivalent of Old Labour/Socialist Worker and UKIP/Reform/ERG. The benefit of this is that voters have a clearer idea of what the parties stand for, and it helps to avoid left/right identity power struggles such as those we've seen in recent years in both the Labour and Conservative parties, in both the parliamentary parties and the wider membership outside parliament. These struggles have been very damaging to the parties, and a distraction from the job of government itself.
This still leaves room for a centrist party, which would be probably the LibDems in the UK and an ecological party, like The Greens. These might become coalition partners if a single party hadn't gained enough seats for an outright majority. If set-up correctly, a proportional system could both protect regional parties, but also ensure their representation remained proportional to their support, which has not been in the case for the SNP under FPTP, where they have been over-represented at Westminster in recent times.
Of course the absolute key benefit of Proportional Representation is that it delivers seats to each party in proportion to their share of the vote, which is not the case under FPTP, where the most popular party tends to win far more seats than their actual share of the national vote, awarding them a significantly unfair advantage that allows them to form a government, even when they might not have the popular support of the country overall, which is not democratic, and a shameful state of affairs.
@@freddiefox. I think the ‘fairness’ of PR is often really overstated. No one ever actually votes for the governments that emerge. The composition of the governments is always the product of elite backroom negotiations after the elections have taken place. Practically speaking, that also means that it can be hard for people to tell who should be held accountable. At least in the Westminster system, with majority governments, there are people who actually vote for the governments that emerge, and it’s easier to tell who should be held responsible.
Also note that not all FTTP systems are equal. The American system is very different and an utter disaster, uniquely combining the worst of PR and the worst of Westminster FTTP.
@@ER1CwC The problem with FPTP is that votes (that should be equal) are not equal, especially where the system is based on the division of land into political constituencies, that can be gerrymandered by altering the boundaries. Proportional voting systems aim to remove such distortions by making votes cast align with seats won.
In any election there will be winners and losers. I'd rather have a coalition of parties that overall aligns with the political will of the whole electorate at that moment in time.
Even single party governments don't always get along. There can be disagreements and people rebel sometimes. A coalition is usually between parties that have similar or complementary views and aims. It means that one party can't impose its more extreme policies on the whole country (which happens under FPTP). The coalition partners have to agree which policies they can support and move forward with together in government.
This is preferable to the system we have now, where millions of votes, and the political will of those voters, counts for nothing in terms of political representation. Those people have no voice and their vote is effectively ignored, and not recognised in the resulting legislature. That's not right.
Under a proportional system people could vote for whoever they wanted (no tactical voting required) in the knowledge that their vote would definitely count towards the final outcome. Even if their party didn't get into government, the number of MPs elected for their party would be partly as a result of their vote.
Another benefit of coalition government is that because parties have to work together, and agree a joint course of action, decisions made in office are perhaps more likely to be retained, whereas in a two-party system, the politics tends to yo-yo back and forth, with each side undoing the work of the other each time they get into power, which is counterproductive, and wastes time and money instead of moving the country forwards.
@@freddiefox. The fact that the number of votes don’t align with the number of seats is a feature, not a bug. It’s supposed to bring greater efficiency. And a huge benefit is that it’s clearer who actually is in charge and should be held responsible for decisions, and who should be rewarded or punished accordingly.
To the last point, the see-sawing back and forth is only an issue when the polity is already very polarized. If an agenda is popular enough, then the mainstream parties will basically agree on the fundamentals. Churchill didn’t try to get rid of Atlee’s basic blueprint, Blair didn’t try to get rid of Thatcher’s, etc. If things are already very polarized or if there is deep disaffection with the center, then I don’t think PR systems would be able to deal with things much better. Things could be even worse actually. If many mainstream parties have been working together in government and are perceived as not delivering good results, then they will all be tagged as ‘the establishment’ and as ‘the same.’ Look at Italy.
I appreciate your comment though.
Think that's a rather sympathetic assessment of why 30p Lee transferred from a Labour Councillor to Conservative candidate after the Labour Party booted him out. Seemed to take several decades for his Thatcherite revelation which interestingly coincided with him being dismissed by Labour.
She doesn't seem to know what she's talking about. Nottinghamshire where he's from is not northern. And anyone who knows anything about Nottinghamshire mining knows they were regarded as Thatcher stooges and scabs during the 1980s strike. No surprise one of them joined the Tories.
Easy for Labour to switch to Cons and vice versa: Both like a top down, "strong leader" they vary a bit econmomically but neither them will change the way we operate, although the true socialists & near fascist right might. Actually, Liberalism is arguably the more radical option. (It is a Marxist/ Labour /New Statesman P.O.V. to see the world only via an economic frame.
Of course, many wannabe MPs simply chose a party as a platform for their ambition under First Past The Post and voters often vote for illogical and uninformed reasons - "a time for change" is powerful but not very intellectual argument.
Both parties are essentially neoliberalist in their outlook and don't challenge the establishment or the super wealthy.
It says a lot about the state of things when the conclusion seems to be that the major difference which influences which MPs join which party is how they feel about nebulous concepts like tradition and activism, notions of whether they look back wistfully on the past, idealise the empire etc and their prospects for winning power/enhancing their own career, rather than on what they would do with that power to transform Britain for the better, substantial policy differences and the morality and pragmatism of parties and their policy. There is a neo-liberal consensus among the two major parties, and on broad areas of their platform. Largely absent from the conversation is what they will do to enhance our quality of life. They always talk about enhancing the economy, but what is the point in enriching the already rich whilst the quality of life for the plebs remains stagnant or declines?!
The system is rotten and does not serve the average person and I think that a majority of people feel that way hence voter apathy.
The only thing driving people to vote for Labour is because the Tories are doing such an abominable job and giving too much ground to vile lunatics in their party, not because they have any enthusiasm or belief that the New New Labour regime is going to change things for the better. I think the best people are expecting is stagnation which is at least more stable than things are now.
Ahhh ... the Tiggas ...I remember them well ... how is old Chucker Immuniser these days? He was such a man of the people with his £600 Gucci loafers. So sad, so undeserved - him losing his seat like that 😂😂
There all labels. They mean different things to different people.
Your either for the many, not the few, or your for the few, not the many.
Tosh. The Tories have been smashing up institutions since 1979. Then they are disappointed that people have no respect for tradition. You can't have it both ways.
Interesting that the 3 journalists see success in politics as being promotion/personal rather than achieving something for the country. If that is true then we do need to think about how to get the right people interested.I would have said one quite simple thing about political difference. Labour believes in the community and enabling the community to do more and achieve more. Conservatives are individualists, success is individual success. Community success is a by product if considered at all. I have been a labour member for years and feel that Blair/Corbyn are not fundamentally different. Perhaps the right (for want odf a better word) in Labour is more pragmatic rather than ideological. I would rather have some "left" than no "left" at all through not getting elected.
Yes is the answer
Yes.
The Conservative Party doesn't stand for any of the conservative values discussed here. The Labour Party under Keir Starmer is trying to take that spot which is why he's moving right of center giving the Conservative Party nowhere to move except further right.
It's also often overlooked that conservatives are generally not averse to change (and pretty extreme change, at that) at all.. when it comes to things in society they dislike. Like, say, the NHS. Or human rights.
Or just think of how Johnson broke a ton of unwritten rules (and at least one actual law) and pretty much got away with it.
Also there's the fact that some of the traditions that at least the current crop seem to stand for include protecting their own from investigations, refusing to feed children from low income households and giving jobs and titles to their friends and benefactors.
As the adage goes “red Tories “. Look
At someone like Patricia Hewitt who trimmed her sails with each passing trend. Bennite when it was popular , then loyal Kinnockite when he was in power and then seem less transition to hard Blairite
I was brought up vote labour its the working man's party. A vote for Conservative was a vote to keep the rich boys in power
but I agee with theses guys on wanting to hold on to all the things you cherish about your country .
now I see that all the main parties seem to be more interested in flogging them self over there parties roots.
as for smaller parties I think they are all relevant but with a first past the system it just seems like a revolving doors system there's no real changes or ideas just a different guy in a new suit spouting the same ideas we are a party for change but nothing changes
The answer to this is obviously yes.
Politics is emotional. There's no point trying to rationalise it or put a logic spin on personal politics - it's about how we FEEL. You can't argue someone who is conservative into becoming a socialist any more than you can persuade a member of the Labour Party to join the tories. Individual policies will be very different, it's entirely possible to agree across the divide on a specific solution to an issue but if someone has strong politics it's about the way they think and feel.
A very perceptive response which I largely agree with. It’s the floating voters who have no deep-seated allegiance (except perhaps to themselves) that determine election outcomes.
@@buzzukfiftythree which I think can be a positive - it reels in any "true believer" because at some point they need to win over an electorate that doesn't share their faith, but can agree with their policies.
About 1% of the population are clinically diagnosable as psychopaths and the way they feel may be different to the other 99% of people. Shockingly, it's estimated that up to 30% of people may have some psychopathic traits. Psychopaths tend to be ambitious and ruthless and disproportionately end up in positions where they can weld power over others with politics and business having higher than average concentrations of them. Ruthlessness and a hunger for power are what takes many people into politics as these personality defects are essential tools for working at Westminster. 😫
@@Irene-im8xi I'd be interested to have that number cross-referenced with those who went to fee-paying boarding schools... If sociopathy isn't genetic and is part of learned/conditioned behaviour I'd put my money on people from that environment being much more prone.
@@KimSE4 That would be interesting!
Thatcherism can be blamed for much of the ills of the current housing market. Its easy to sell off the family silver to prop up a government, but you can only do it once!
Freddie on Rory S - High Tory...As Prisons Minister he saw something (nb -thing) that had to change. Come what may. His personal 'gut' instinct said - this must change. Not policy as such, but root and branch at medium-micro level. Take a few of those, stir and you are in the way to a policy..........High Policy it may be. Gut is it?.
Rory Stewart worked for M16 for years. He therefore cannot be trusted by ordinary workers. The secret services are no friends of those seeking change.
Yes!
Lee Anderson is not from the North lol
Why do some people keep saying he is when he clearly isn't
The Midlands is the South of the North to these people
Conservative concerns for social and environmental justice comes from a position of unrecognised privilege, rather than from the direct experience of such injustice.
The concept of “noblesse oblige” is pretty old, and “old money” types in the Conservative Party (e.g Harold Macmillan and Alec Douglas-Home) have often understood it. It’s generally been working-class and lower middle-class Conservatives who have been most “on yer bike”.
Labour’s Tony Crosland (educated at Highgate and Oxford) famously told his wife, “If it's the last thing I do, I'm going to destroy every fucking grammar school in England.” This suggests that some private vendetta against members of his own class was driving his policy, not a more considered desire to improve the lot of the poor.
@@georgesdelatour especially those lower middle classes Tories who think that they have 'made it' on the back of their own effort and talent, rather than the unrecognised advantages of a welfare state, especially state funded grammar schools.
@@curtistim The Conservatives have never pushed back against Tony Crosland’s policy. Crosland replaced merit-based selection with plutocratic selection by catchment-area house price. It works for both Labour and Conservative Party hypocrites.
What do they know of politics who only politics know.
These young middle class people . University educated . Living a comfortable life. They have no experience of the lives lived by millions of struggling families in our country. Some of them will become MPs. Why ? What are their aims ? Do they want to fundamentally change our country. This is an academic discussion which achieves nothing concrete for the starving. They must take a look at the conditions that exist. Travel around our country. Then decide where you stand . Do you wish to give hope to those who are suffering or do you wish to deliver despair?
they should be a different party, but the system makes it impossible. PR would show really how many conservative votes are right wing and how many actually centrists
The centre has shifted way to the Right.
Labels, labels, labels. Just judge the policies on their own merits. This labelling obsession is the cause of the present melt-down.
Democracy...😂😂
30p Lee just followed the money. There is nothing deeper going on with that intellect.
Are Blairites really centrist Tories?
What would that make Hugh Gaitskill then?
labour was a broad church, Starmer is purging the center left.
Starmer has eschewed socialism. So ,I believe has the New Statesman. Labour takes its orders from the extreme right Trilateral Commission which aims to impose government by the elite . The claim there is too much democracy. No self respecting politician should go anywhere near an institution that has Henry Kissinger as a trustee. The Tony Blair institute also has influence over Starmer. Blairs aims are the same as the Trilateral Commission. Worst of all the Israeli state is giving orders and funding.
Well, the centrists have to come from somewhere. As far as the Tories go, there’s a couple in Dorset and the rest seem like cultists.
why can't international agreements reflect society positively? For Example, India to Ireland, UK to USA, International UUII agreement, putting international coordination and pressure toward and against international tax evasion and corruption. THE UK'S OWN LAWS AREN'T CLOSING THE BACK DOOR.
What is Cameroonism? Surely he means Cameron-ism?
What a load of BS! Lee Anderson became a conservative because of Thatcher? What, in 2018?? Peddling a nonsense like that insted of just calling him an opportunist is just embarassing.
You might as well ask - aren't centrist Tories really soft Left?
For god sake when will people stop throwing the term One Nation Tory around. Ian gilmour was a one nation Tory who believed in building council houses, strong unions and Keynesian economics ok there aren’t anymore one nation Tories around they’re all free market zelots
You must support big money to win, so at their core, they all have the same values towards the rich…
This is a good question and is a function of the convergence of the two main Parties and of widespread “group think”. The word Conservatism no longer begins with a small or large “c”. As you rightly allude to, there is likely to be a real struggle within the Conservatives after the Election to establish where their heart and soul should lie. I very much enjoy your discussions, intelligent and civilised, you all interact so well.
Yes. But us it a bad thing? They are still further left than the majority of voters.
Of course they are, is the simple answer!!!!!
These points will become less relevant once we have moved to proportional representation.
I’d certainly like to see PR introduced, but I do think many supporters expect too much of it. It isn’t a panacea for all ills and can result in stalemate scenarios and political uncertainty.
@@buzzukfiftythreeAt least it reflects better what people think. The two sides format is an abstraction that doesn't. Although Britain's time as a Commonwealth has been romanticised as the beginning of a modern constitutional politics in Britain, it wasn't enough, as its radicalism was limited to entrenching a new ruling class backed by financial interests who would become capitalists and replace aristocracy. We need something much like it to face the challenges of the future. Neither of the mainstream parties are intent on the long-term needs of its people. And that's why a two party system inhibits needed evolution. More devolution, and let the uncertainty be acknowledged and dealt with, because who we have in charge now cannot respond to real challenges as is.
@@buzzukfiftythree
No matter who you vote for, the LibDems will always win.
The Staggers has done it again.
This is a great discussion. I’d love to hear more about these topics. Thanks
'broad church' is such a dismal status quo expression. FFS don't use it.
All Tories.
Cigarette paper stuff. Blairites are Tories and Tories are Blairites, the policies of both are dictated by non-dom donors who profit from privatisation and outsourcing, and both are Imperialist warmongers/51st state lapdogs who are responsible for the exacerbation of war and terror and associated humanitarian crises across the Middle East and North Africa, most notably Iraq and Libya.
More broadly, Liberals and Conservatives are two sides of the same quinoa-Capitalist cocktail party, the primary difference between the two is that the former will gladly dole out alms to the poor (in exchange for YUGE tax breaks and other state protections) while the latter don't even pretend to care about those suffering the consequences of their policies.
What all this means for the 'average Joe' (in both the UK and the USA) is that it doesn't matter which party you vote for, you'll still be ruled over by the friends of Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos and Jeff Epstein and your quality of life, living standards and life expectency will continue to decline.
Stupid question. The modern Tories arent even ‘Tories’ anymore. Labels are a dumb way to tribalise politics.
Hearing that Nick Clegg was chair Cambridge Conservative Association explains a lot! I wish this had been shouted more loudly before the election in 2010. Then we might not have been stuck with a bunch of traitors supporting austerity!
No point in refusing a place at the table. No one gets into politics so they can moan about things from the sidelines.
@@aaropajari7058 Depends on the conditions of the place at the table - seems those included breaking election pledges about which they had made a VERY big deal and supporting austerity policies which disproportionately hurt the poor and sent many more people than ever before desperately heading to food banks because they couldn't afford to eat.
Labour proposed more austerity than the LDs in 2010.
The LDs being in coalition with the Conservatives meant that we got a level of austerity closer to that originally proposed by Labour than the Conservatives.
'Traitors supporting austerity'?
Eh. If you want the Conservatives to be kept out, then perhaps put some pressure on Labour to bring about electoral reform. Their refusal to replace FPTP with PR when they could has supported the Conservatives more than near enough anything else over the past 13 years.
he was never CUCA Chair they are mistaken
My understanding, having observed political alignments for a few years now, is that those who consider themselves "centre", regardless of which "side" they attach to it, are basically economically Conservative, but don't like the nasty social aspects that the Tory party advances. The problem I have with them is that given a choice between somebody who adheres to their social values, but is a threat to their economic way of life, a centrist will do everything in their power to ensure the Tory party wins, because they would rather be ruled by Conservatives with the bad that comes with them than see their precious economic system, of which many are exploiting for their own gains, be threatened by socialist policies.
As such, I hold centrists with more contempt than Tories, because at least Tories are honest with who they are, even if that is a despicable greedy self-serving individual. A centrist will pretend they value equality and social reforms, only to then throw their full weight into smearing the likes of a Corbyn or Sanders in favour for a Johnson/Trump administration. They're the first ones to cry about the left not falling in line with their political representatives, but will then go on TV and actively declare how they "have no choice" but to vote for a Conservative when a left leaning politician threatens to arise to the same position of power.
I am usually a fan of this podcast but found this discussion terribly naive and superficial in its approach.
blair was never a socialist.
definately a socialite
S,
Wait for it,
T,
Nobody's interested,
F,
Stop talking about labour vs conservatives or left vs right and look at the policies of all parties.
We should vote for policies and then find the best person for the job to implement the policies.
Blairites were nobody’s that has not changed
I wonder if anyone talking in this video is old enough to remember what the country was like under a Blair Labour government. There is a big difference reading about it with hindsight 20 years later. These words like neoliberalism and Blairite get thrown about like a term of abuse and don't end up having any relation to the context and reality of the time. Could Blair have done more reform? Of course he could. But after 18 years out of power Labour weren't in a position to change everything and the conservatives had done so much damage to public services Labour could only improve so much. If Starmer gets in power will he be able to fix every problem made by the conservatives? No. But it will be much better than the status quo.
What if that isn't enough? This is why we need Proportional Representation right there.
Yes I'm old enough to recall Blair's govt...he changed little
My, how naive can you get!!!!?? Starmer is going along the same track as Blair, and that is seeking power for power's sake!!
Just wait , there will be another Starmer u turn coming in a few minutes
@@keithparker1346you clearly didn't live in the cities, which were transformed by spending. You weren't gay because he lifted clause 28, equalised the age of consent and set up civil partnerships. You clearly weren't a kid, who benefited from surestart and massive education investment. You clearly weren't Ill, because the NHS was better than it's ever been.
Appalling analysis based on feelings rather than policy.
I took it as a chat about motivation. Policy is supported (or not) along tribal lines over merit. But how do people get to that position?
Seemed like a very naive sixth form discussion.
There is 0 difference literally
Yes, yes they are. Pink tories the lot of them 🤬
There’s a leftist UA-camr I occasionally follow. I rarely agree with him about anything, but I often get a useful glimpse of where the avant-garde of leftist thinking is at. He made a video explaining why everyone in the political centre is really on the right, and they’re all basically just Fascists with better table manners. Needless to say, some people on the right think centrists are just Communists who drive within the speed limit.
One thing both perspectives miss is that, on specific issues, centrists are often extremists; more extreme than either leftists or conservatives. The most divisive issue in UK politics is, of course, the European Union. And, on that question, the Liberal Democrats are absolutely an extremist party. They famously gave a standing ovation to Guy Verhofstadt for a speech in which he said that 1) empires are awesome, and 2) the EU needs to become a full-blown empire. On the issue of European integration, Verhofstadt is easily the most extreme integrationist voice around. It’s literally impossible to outflank him from a more hardline, "true believer", integrationist position.
The most moderate, evenhanded view of the EU during the Referendum was probably that of left winger Jeremy Corbyn, who argued that the EU sucks a lot, but leaving it might suck more. I don’t remember anyone thanking him for his moderation.
If he could have been arsed to campaign properly on his 'moderation' he could have mobilised the youth vote and we'd still be in the EU.
@@DocNick68 All it would have taken for Remain to win was a promise of automatic referenda on all future EU integration.
Seeing as it was a binary vote, it seems rather dumb to "campaign" for one side while being half-hearted about it. There was no option to "stay in the EU but don't be too happy about it" or "leave the EU but be nostalgic about the time we were in it". Campaigning on that basis doesn't help to mobilise anyone, more so if you're supposed to be a political party leader of a party that supposedly cares about an issue that matters a great deal to the future of the country. He received no thanks for his moderation, because it was utterly stupid from a tactical perspective, regardless of whether his views about the issue were correct or not.
@@Scruffed Private polling by both sides in the run up to the vote revealed that: 1) around 40% would vote Leave no matter what, 2) around 30% would vote Remain no matter what, 3) between 15 and 20% of voters disliked the EU but were nervous of leaving it. Most would vote Remain if they felt reassured it was a vote purely for the status quo - a vote for "thus far but no further". The Leave campaign correctly calculated that if they could persuade some of these voters that a Remain win would quickly be followed by further integration, they'd get them to switch and vote Leave.
In 2016, the way for Remain to win was to reassure those swing voters. They hadn't been allowed to vote on the Maastricht or Lisbon Treaties. They needed a guarantee. Why not give them one?
@@georgesdelatour I'd see no problem with giving that guarantee, what doesn't (and didn't) work was having the leader of one of the two main parties not sending strong and enthusiastic support for remaining in the EU, a strong rejection of the case for leaving, and a communication strategy that reaches millions rather than what he did (campaigning in small venues and town halls).
It's not just the people that can already articulate a view about remaining or leaving that the campaign needed to fight for, but also those who didn't consider the issue as important enough to get out to vote or to be informed about the implications of leaving. Not surprisingly, the day after the vote, millions were Googling "what is the EU"?, it was the second most searched term in the UK, while the first was "what does it mean to leave the EU?". I can't wholly credit Corbyn for the Leave vote, but I think he did the Leave campaign an enormous favor, and one that they sorely needed given how tight the result was.
WMD Bliar
What a joke. How you can not understand that Centralist = right wing in the current culture. … and conservative want conservation and tradition? Home a break! Sell off all our assets and see them run into the grounds and polite all our waterways for profit??? So very traditional and caring for Britain. The sinkhole best signifier of Tories is a misunderstanding hatred and othering of the poor and disadvantaged
😂😂😂traditional diversity huh
Yes they are Tories
….typical Comintern response.
Blairites are tories, as is Blair
Yes
Dude all 3 parties are exactly the same
Yes.