h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

<>

Would that there was so much difference between them.


You seem to think that 'socialism', what most would call Social Democracy, is linked to countries having lower economic growth. I don't think that's the case. Certainly Scandiwegian countries are pretty wealthy.


I really don't like New Labour. Initially, they didn't stray from what the Tories had to get voters in marginal seats to trust them. It was common perception that Labour were incompetent at running the economy, so they said 'we won't change this at first'. I think that's fair enough as a political tactic, when you've been out of power for a generation. For me though, they came to believe that Tory-Lite was the way to be. I think they found that the tactics of being electable caused them to lose sight of *why* they wanted to govern in the first place.


They did things to be popular instead of doing to make themselves popular. I think that's ultimately what will put them out of power (it's *so* happening, eh?). Even though most people are a *lot* better off under them, I don't think anyone feels any loyalty towards them.

I'd agree with that. Labour learned how to win elections and that's all they're geared up to do.

Unfortunately they're still copying 11 year old policies and tactics and they're unable to undestand why they don't work.

I believe that nuLabour have totally failed their core voters, and the country. Frankly I have nothing but contempt for anyone who supports tham. (I'm talking about nuLabour here.) The only reason anyone seems to be able to give for supporting them is that "They're not Tories" something I would call a debatable assertion.

The idea that Labour keep people in poverty to retain their votes is conspiracist nonsense easily dismissed by the fact that Labour have since the mid-nineties not only pursued the middle-class vote (which they, all too rightly, realised the Conservatives didn't hold all that strongly) but actively encouraged middle-class values like saving and consumerism. The reason Labour has failed Glasgow East is it's been a safe seat since time immemorial and so Labour don't really have to do anything for the people there beyond give them someone to vote for. Despite the predictable nonsense about "spending doesn't work" from the Spectator (who are ideologically incapable of thinking anything else) the reason spending didn't work in Glasgow East is cultural; it's pointless spending money on infrastructure and social programs if there's no cultural will to build on them. The welfare culture in Glasgow is partly to blame for that but the collapse of the city's traditional industries and their slow replacement by service industries (which favour middle-class employees) has had a similar impact Ultimately, the social and cultural issues must be dealt with at the same time as the injections of money but Labour had no reason to do this because they weren't in any danger of being ousted. The SNP victory will, hopefully, change all that.