Labour and integrity?

This post was mentioned on Twitter by libcon: :: Belief We Can Change Into http://bit.ly/6UhrOB...

And to bring it back to the original post, the response of the British left to the politics of empty charisma should therefore be to (re)build a grassroots movement in which lots more people are actively engaged in doing politics, rather than relying on the professional politicians.

- class war (as advocated by Sunny)
- class war (as advocated by Balls – in case they’re two different things)
- middle England strategy (as advocated by Mandelson)
- anti-inequality strategy (as advocated by Harman)
- ‘Tory Stories’ (as advocated by Cruddas)
- swing to the left (as advocated by Benn and McDonnell)

Somehow, none of these seem capable of stopping a Tory majority.

“Rigged” was putting it too crudely. Though possibly not entirely inacurately.”

By that definition, every British election has been “rigged”. Anyway, it was Labour, not the Tories, which won a majority of seats. In 1951, Labour won 48.8% of the vote to the Tories 48%, but the Tories ended up with a parliamentary majority, was that what you were thinking of?

I can’t see the grounds for referring to 1945 specifically as a “system-failure”, unless in fact your analysis is that “All mass democracy is, is a contest between one plebiscitary Caesar and another, except in the case of the UK and every other electoral system where parties do not win seats in strict proportion to their share of the popular vote”.

yes, pretty much; I meant that the Tories were able to carry a majority of seats in the House that didn’t reflect their proportion of the popular vote.

“Rigged” was putting it too crudely. Though possibly not entirely inacurately.

IMO your Weberian answers have no historical crdibility – and BTW my parents took me to watch them voting in the 1945 election.

Churchill was much regarded as war leader but public sentiment had turned against a return to the politics and policies of the 1930s. There was a powerful popular tide running for change and especially for the Beveridge vision of a welfare state.

Kinnock lost out in 1992 because of the Labour Party election rally in Sheffield:

“So what did cost Labour the 1992 election? Worcester has no doubt that it was the Sheffield rally, just eight days before polling day. On the eve of the rally, three polls came out, showing a seven-point lead, a six-point lead and a four-point lead for Labour. That day, Labour peaked.”
http://www.newstatesman.com/199812110020

To get a taste of why the rally generated such an adverse reaction, try this BBC video report of the event:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/vote2001/in_depth/election_battles/1992qt_sheffield.stm

Richard is correct about Kinnock – as the video clip of the Sheffield rally shows.

How was the electoral system rigged against Churchill in 1945? I don’t think I’ve seen this claim before. Is the point that they won a landslide of seats with 49.7% of the popular vote, or something else?

Because as dull as Major was, Kinnock just came across as an utter twat.

Weberian answer:

Because the party machines backing the other charismatic Caesars were better organised on the other side (and in the case of 1945, the electoral system was rigged against the people’s actual favourite).

The masses have to really believe in their plebiscitary Caesar, and the system must work such that their belief can return him with power. Of course, there are times when no true leaders with the “calling for politics” actually emerge, and all you get is second-raters.

In 1992, Kinnock in the end didn’t manage to cut it vis-a-vis the incumbent (even if, in this case, Major was noteably lacking in charisma in our pejorative ordinary usage, for Weber remember “charisma” is a technical term; it means the ability to command loyalty and trust, and that doesn’t always mean oily charm), and in 1945 the system was fucked. As for 1970, that was more a reflection again of the system being a mess, and the fact the masses were fairly evenly split between the prospective Caesars they wanted to put their trust in, hence the continuous to-ing and fro-ing between Labour and Tories from 1970-79, when neither party could clearly pull ahead of the other.

In short, apart from 1945 which represents more a system-failure, the fact that genuine leaders aren’t always available, and that the leader who (with hindsight) looked more charismatic (in the pejorative sense) didn’t always win doesn’t disprove the Weberian take.

Which is much more subtle and sophisticated than I’m rendering it…

So why, for example, didn’t Churchill defeat Attlee in 1945, why wasn’t Wilson re-elected in 1970, and why didn’t Kinnock end thirteen long years of Tory rule in 1992?

Max Weber got it right 90 years ago. All mass democracy is, is a contest between one plebiscitary Caesar and another. He with most charisma wins.

The important thing is getting our bastard (or bastardette) in power.

But the Tories have realised, as Labour did with more integrity in 1994…

Hang on, Laurie, you’re associating the ascendancy of New Labour and its playbook of surface over substance (and cameron’s schtick is pretty much just a carbon-copy) with integrity..? Fucking hell, and your last line implies simply copying that copy.? Jesus wept, what would that be New New labour? Purnell has had a stab at that in today’s Guardian and rightly been ripped a new one, not by Tory trolls, but by disillusioned lefties and liberals who’ve been betrayed.Float the prospect of the Tory bogeyman all you like, it still doesn’t merit backing NewLab. The prospect of being hectored with bullshit by the two (and a half) sets of neo-liberal, corporatist self-serving careerist spivvy chancers over the next few months is depressing. The opportunity to shift the centre of political gravity radically towards the left was in 1997 – with the Tories destroyed and moribund. The last 13 years, have been more than one long missed chance, with the appalling ‘project’ instrumental in enshrining the sickening witless neo-liberal corporatist duopoly that British politics has become, disgracefully eroding civil liberties while overseeing an expansion in inequalities and a more divided,fractured society.
In some regards a Tory govt might be needed to galvanise real opposition to both showers-of-shits. The Tories are more upfront as bastards to us, whereas Labour are shiftier and sneakier enemies, so mobilising against neo-liberal bastardry might be easier with a more open and overt foe.

http://www.progressivelondon.org.uk/conference/progressive-london-conference-2010.html

… they demonstrated, as so many sitting members of both the Labour and Conservative parties have in the past, the sincere conviction that it is the job of parliament to decide who should lead the people, rather than it being the right of the people to decide who should run the government.

Well, to be fair, the former is the effect of our constitution.

Labour has lost two points to 28 per cent since early December, while the Tories have gained three points to 41 per cent, its highest level since September for the largest lead since then. The Liberal Democrats are on 19 per cent, down 1 point.

Mr Brown will secure some consolation from the poll finding that 41 per cent of voters – up 8 points since last September – believe he is the best leader Labour could have at present. Among Labour voters that figure is 71 per cent, up nine points, underlying isolated the anti-Brown plotters are in the party. . . .
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6984223.ece

So much for the attempted coups in the Parliamentary Labour Party.

The interesting question is who or what motivated it. Perhaps you’ve read the news report in June 2006 about Blair’s 22-page letter to Michael Foot in 1982?

“Tony Blair’s youthful enthusiasm for radical socialism and his admiration for socialist theorist Karl Marx are revealed in letter written in 1982.

“In the 22-page letter, the 29-year-old Mr Blair tells then Labour leader Michael Foot how reading Marx had ‘irreversibly altered’ his outlook.

“He also praises Tony Benn, agreeing with the left-winger’s analysis that Labour’s right-wing was bankrupt.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/5081798.stm

I suspect Tony Blair’s many dedicated admirers here and abroad will be surprised to learn that he was inspired both by Karl Marx and Tony Benn.