The Labour party leadership election could confirm one of the most frequent criticism's leveled against the political parties of the twenty first century. If David or Ed Miliband emerges victorious (which is quite likely) we will see the completion of a triad of gareish Blairish leaders, all fairly young, charismatic and pragmatic.
Originally Labour was the party of the working class, the Liberals represented the middle class and the Conservatives represented the upper middle class and upper class, however as landowners and industrialist power declined and the franchise was extended to more and more people, the conservatives began encroaching on Liberal territory, attempting to gain support from a greater number of the middle class and in more recent times the working class has declined in number as more and more industrial jobs are moved abroad. The result of this is that the labour party too has become more and more right wing (some might say further right then the Conservatives) in an attempt to appeal to "middle england". The result of this shift is three major parties, arguing over detail and not policy itself.
Imagine how incredible the last election could have been, if rather then having New Labour arguing about the timing of cuts with Cameron's "we're all in this together" Tories, we could have seen a Labour leader cut from the same cloth as Atley or Foot, opposing cuts on all fronts and proposing keynesian economic policy, going toe to toe with a hardcore Thatcherite arguing in favour of dramatic laizze-faire policy. Not only would people be forced to admit these people were gulfs apart, but they would also be able to see these politcian's as trustworthy. The general pragmatic and machiavellian attitude of modern politicians is what makes them untrustworthy, the fact that if the political winds change we, as a people, can be certain they will change with it and with figures like Mandelson and Cameron, who always appear to be weaving an elaborate web of deceit. We saw last election the true extent to this, Cameron, after saying he would not deal, dealed and Mandelsons attempts to cling onto power, scratching around till the very end.
But with ideologically driven leaders we know where we stand, Thatcher's famous saying "you turn if you want to... the ladies not for turning" sums it up perfectly, it demonstrates the fact that with ideology comes commitment to that ideology and to carrying it through. While there is some need for pragmatism, it should not be the root of what a party or leader is based around as it has been in modern times. If parties simply stop copying one another and actually propose policy of their own, returning to the core tennets their parties were founded upon, people may once again begin to see that politicians are different from one another and can be trusted. Because if the path continues in the way it has , the small vestage of democracy left will be replaced by a system of choosing a dictator who is most likely to put in place a single political programme because right now there is so little difference between them all, that you could be forgiven for thinking that they are all just the same.
Originally Labour was the party of the working class, the Liberals represented the middle class and the Conservatives represented the upper middle class and upper class, however as landowners and industrialist power declined and the franchise was extended to more and more people, the conservatives began encroaching on Liberal territory, attempting to gain support from a greater number of the middle class and in more recent times the working class has declined in number as more and more industrial jobs are moved abroad. The result of this is that the labour party too has become more and more right wing (some might say further right then the Conservatives) in an attempt to appeal to "middle england". The result of this shift is three major parties, arguing over detail and not policy itself.
Imagine how incredible the last election could have been, if rather then having New Labour arguing about the timing of cuts with Cameron's "we're all in this together" Tories, we could have seen a Labour leader cut from the same cloth as Atley or Foot, opposing cuts on all fronts and proposing keynesian economic policy, going toe to toe with a hardcore Thatcherite arguing in favour of dramatic laizze-faire policy. Not only would people be forced to admit these people were gulfs apart, but they would also be able to see these politcian's as trustworthy. The general pragmatic and machiavellian attitude of modern politicians is what makes them untrustworthy, the fact that if the political winds change we, as a people, can be certain they will change with it and with figures like Mandelson and Cameron, who always appear to be weaving an elaborate web of deceit. We saw last election the true extent to this, Cameron, after saying he would not deal, dealed and Mandelsons attempts to cling onto power, scratching around till the very end.
But with ideologically driven leaders we know where we stand, Thatcher's famous saying "you turn if you want to... the ladies not for turning" sums it up perfectly, it demonstrates the fact that with ideology comes commitment to that ideology and to carrying it through. While there is some need for pragmatism, it should not be the root of what a party or leader is based around as it has been in modern times. If parties simply stop copying one another and actually propose policy of their own, returning to the core tennets their parties were founded upon, people may once again begin to see that politicians are different from one another and can be trusted. Because if the path continues in the way it has , the small vestage of democracy left will be replaced by a system of choosing a dictator who is most likely to put in place a single political programme because right now there is so little difference between them all, that you could be forgiven for thinking that they are all just the same.
No comments:
Post a Comment