3% of the voting electorate appeared out of nowhere to vote for the governing party. If we were a developing country there would be proper allegations of electoral fraud.
Therefore the question is how to identify these phantom voters and the issues which led them to vote Conservative. I have seen no analysis yet which answers this question. Blaming "left-wing" policies is lazy. The Labour manifesto will continue to be relevant throughout this Parliament. Blaming Mr Miliband is lazy. He consistently led the national debate and his exposure in the campaign was entirely positive.
The only weighty contribution the winner made in the campaign was the injection of poisonous English nationalism. It is plausible that this was the winning stroke. English people have always had a suspicious attitude towards English nationalism and therefore this chimes with voters who are too ashamed or suspicious or isolated to admit to voting Conservative.
My analysis entails that Labour addressed the voters' issues, their policies would re-balance the economy, and that Mr Miliband's leadership was a textbook of how to lead a party defeated unjustifiably in an election.
Mine is not a "same as usual" prognosis, but one for natural development of the party in response to circumstances. English nationalism is likely to be a dead duck by 2020. We are likely to be only English by then anyway. Just as in 1992, phantom Tory voters have voted in a disaster in waiting for their country.
Therefore the question is how to identify these phantom voters and the issues which led them to vote Conservative. I have seen no analysis yet which answers this question. Blaming "left-wing" policies is lazy. The Labour manifesto will continue to be relevant throughout this Parliament. Blaming Mr Miliband is lazy. He consistently led the national debate and his exposure in the campaign was entirely positive.
The only weighty contribution the winner made in the campaign was the injection of poisonous English nationalism. It is plausible that this was the winning stroke. English people have always had a suspicious attitude towards English nationalism and therefore this chimes with voters who are too ashamed or suspicious or isolated to admit to voting Conservative.
My analysis entails that Labour addressed the voters' issues, their policies would re-balance the economy, and that Mr Miliband's leadership was a textbook of how to lead a party defeated unjustifiably in an election.
Mine is not a "same as usual" prognosis, but one for natural development of the party in response to circumstances. English nationalism is likely to be a dead duck by 2020. We are likely to be only English by then anyway. Just as in 1992, phantom Tory voters have voted in a disaster in waiting for their country.
One party that contributed to the disruption was the honest Greens. Time to stop ignoring them:
https://www.greenparty.org.uk/we-stand-for/
https://www.greenparty.org.uk/we-stand-for/
But everyone does pay for the unequal income of the wealthy. We pay in the form of lower incomes and benefits for everyone else.
7
Surely a Labour operative cannot really believe that taxes are in and of themselves an unjust method of redistribution whereas the "trickle up" methods of squeezing workers to fatten management and shareholders — methods endemic to unchecked pure market capitalism — are somehow laws of nature that must be accepted as the human condition.
1
Mandelson says that Labour lost because "the rest of us do not pay for rich people's wealth."
No, Labour lost in part because it failed to enumerate the ways in which the rest of us do pay for rich people's wealth and the ways a government of and for the people could reverse that process.
We pay for rich people to get richer in many ways:
1) Most of the gains in productivity over the past few decades have gone to the top 1% rather than to workers who are working more productively. Much of that money rightly belongs to workers and could be redistributed or taxed and spent on public goods that benefit all, such as education and infrastructure.
2) Numerous tax deductions and loopholes primarily benefit the rich and big corporations, leaving the rest of us paying an unfair portion of the costs of government. Those could be reversed.
3) Free trade deals that promote labor arbitrage (sending work wherever labor is cheapest) have impoverished the working class and enriched the moneyed class in developed countries. These could be replaced with trade agreements among developed countries that impose tariffs on labor costs that don't support a decent standard of living. This would effectively raise wages worldwide.
Labour lost, and the Democrats often lose in this country, because they fail to offer full-throated support for the 99% who must work to live and because they shrink from stating truths and arguing for programs that would discomfort their most moneyed backers.
No, Labour lost in part because it failed to enumerate the ways in which the rest of us do pay for rich people's wealth and the ways a government of and for the people could reverse that process.
We pay for rich people to get richer in many ways:
1) Most of the gains in productivity over the past few decades have gone to the top 1% rather than to workers who are working more productively. Much of that money rightly belongs to workers and could be redistributed or taxed and spent on public goods that benefit all, such as education and infrastructure.
2) Numerous tax deductions and loopholes primarily benefit the rich and big corporations, leaving the rest of us paying an unfair portion of the costs of government. Those could be reversed.
3) Free trade deals that promote labor arbitrage (sending work wherever labor is cheapest) have impoverished the working class and enriched the moneyed class in developed countries. These could be replaced with trade agreements among developed countries that impose tariffs on labor costs that don't support a decent standard of living. This would effectively raise wages worldwide.
Labour lost, and the Democrats often lose in this country, because they fail to offer full-throated support for the 99% who must work to live and because they shrink from stating truths and arguing for programs that would discomfort their most moneyed backers.
11
Liberals around the world were depressed by Labour's loss and are wondering why you just don't dust off Tony Blair and run him again. After all didn't Winston Churchill make a similar comeback.
1
But when you think Blair, you think 'support the US invasion of Iraq, which wasn't what most British people wanted - or for that matter, what at least half of Americans wanted.
1
It's interesting that the author's analysis of Mr MIliband's articulation of economic policy is that it essentially agreed with his focus on income inequality -- and said nothing about the misguided policy of austerity. The policy of budget cuts that would magically bring the economy back from the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression -- but did not. The policy that has inflamed the debate on income inequality, and increased the anti-immigrant vote, while souring many Brits on membership in the EU itself. No, Mr Mandelson. the problem with Mr Miliband's economic policy was that it treated the symptom of the problem -- rising inequality -- rather than the cause -- misguided austerity policies.
2
Labour's defeat was on many measures not its worst in three decades - the Conservatives won on the narrowest of margins.
An important part of the story was that the polls were tied till the very end, with the result that many British voters were forced to look long and hard at the prospect of the Scottish Nationalists holding the balance of power at Westminster.
As Peter Mandelson correctly implies, Sturgeon's embrace of Miliband was toxic - it costs Labour many English seats and was surely meant to. In fat the SNP's former leader has even said he wished they had run candidates against Labour in northern England, a spoiling tactic and nothing else. SNP gave Cameron his majority and that suits them just fine.
An important part of the story was that the polls were tied till the very end, with the result that many British voters were forced to look long and hard at the prospect of the Scottish Nationalists holding the balance of power at Westminster.
As Peter Mandelson correctly implies, Sturgeon's embrace of Miliband was toxic - it costs Labour many English seats and was surely meant to. In fat the SNP's former leader has even said he wished they had run candidates against Labour in northern England, a spoiling tactic and nothing else. SNP gave Cameron his majority and that suits them just fine.
1
Mr. Mandelson makes no mention of the effect of the SNP on Labor's loss. As in the U.S., regions in the UK tend to be for one party or another; i.e. California always opts for a Democrat, Oklahoma a Republican. Over the years, Labor has ceded one area of support to the SNP, who now have nearly 10% of the seats in the new Parliament.
The SNP campaigned on the basis of forming a post election alliance with Labor to remove the Tories from power. So, voters in England had to choose beteween the Tories and an alliance comprising a significant faction that wanted to break away from England.
It's no wonder the Tories won.
The SNP campaigned on the basis of forming a post election alliance with Labor to remove the Tories from power. So, voters in England had to choose beteween the Tories and an alliance comprising a significant faction that wanted to break away from England.
It's no wonder the Tories won.
1
I agree, except I would say the SNP wants to break away from BRITAIN. Most voters in England identify themselves as British and mistrust ethnic nationalisms, the English variant included. The Scottish Nationalists endlessly talk of 'the English' and 'the Scots' and so have nothing much to say to those of us who have many nationalities mixed in their (British) identity, as my family does - English, Scots, Irish, French, a bit of Norwegian ...
You are over- thinking this one Peter. Labour did not lose because of policy, they lost because people didn't personally like Ed Miliband, that was their honest gut reaction. As you know, his rise to power included the political fratricide of his brother David and people instinctifully felt uneasy about trusting him as their leader. No need for a huge reimagine of labour, just find a leader that people trust and like.
And the fact that most Labour-voting Scots left the party to vote for the Scottish nationalist party? Not important?
I am not sure this little column gets it right, I am sorry to say.
What would happen to American Democrats if New England decided to become independent and started a separatist party (which would be a good idea, BTW, especially if we have a Clinton-Bush election)? How do you suppose the Dems would do in that contest?
I am not sure this little column gets it right, I am sorry to say.
What would happen to American Democrats if New England decided to become independent and started a separatist party (which would be a good idea, BTW, especially if we have a Clinton-Bush election)? How do you suppose the Dems would do in that contest?
2
Capitalism is not some simple organizational system of economic activity. It is a term referring to a long varied set of historically contingent practices, institutions, markets, politics, and social organizations, constantly changing. You cannot be for or against it. That would be like asking whether one is for or against history. Within this historically conditioned set of practices are all sort of balances and tensions -- taxes, spending on public goods (environment, infrastructure, health, water, sewerage, defense, police, immigration, protection of intellectual and other property, care for children and the elderly, etc.), rights and responsibilities of individuals vs. social groups, and happiness -- for the many vs. for the few. The wealthy and well-placed often try to present all this as some (fictitious) war against the "rightfully wealthy" by the "unfortunate." Mr. Mandelson is doing this, as perhaps, from another angle was Mr. Miliband (at least in some of his rhetoric). Politics today should be focused on fairness of the balances and tensions. But this requires sophisticated reasoning and complex knowledge based on excellent education for all, and mass media that are well-funded and responsible. These prerequisites are rare, largely due to those in power funded by those with great wealth. The same history that has produced capitalism has demonstrated its devastating consequences when the balances are ignored. Can we talk about these balances in a rational way?
1
Money is power and power corrupts. Capitalism is inherently corrupt because those who gain wealth gain power to accumulate even more wealth. Without a strong government to redistribute wealth capitalism will fail.
2
Although an interesting article, perhaps Mr Peter Mandelson, notorious within the UK for being the "Grand Pooh-Bah of British Politics", in deference to a character within The Mikado obsessed with accumulating irrelevant titles, should acquaint himself with more research. Unfortunately, Labour Lost in Scotland precisely because they retained the baloneous merits of New Labour, and failed to address the needs of the Scottish Electorate who, rather than accepting a choice between the Conservative Party or Conservative Party lite, instead opted for the Nationalists within Scotland. Perhaps Mr Peter Mandelson could discuss topics within future that he has some knowledge of.
Mandelson is too close to the fray to provide a big-picture overview. As one comment says, he doesn't even mention the UKIP vote. Combine that and the SNP vote with the winner-takes all election system, and we see something very different.
However, the real issue for the UK and for England is what to do about the tradition of intellectualism that always compensated for the grossness of English imperialism. The UK, and particularly England, is in a trough of crude materialism. If Labour can't lead the way out of that, forget "policies."
However, the real issue for the UK and for England is what to do about the tradition of intellectualism that always compensated for the grossness of English imperialism. The UK, and particularly England, is in a trough of crude materialism. If Labour can't lead the way out of that, forget "policies."
3
I am a former US legislator and lived in London (2011/2012) while attending LSE’s graduate school. In my view, Labor/Left lost for the same reasons Democrats have become the minority party in the U.S. -Low turnout from the working class and high turn-out from the upper class.
The question then becomes: “How to turn-out working class voters?” The answer is to have real leaders committed to a coherent message that addresses economic problems individuals struggle to solve by themselves.
And then turn them out to vote!
The answer isn’t mouthing the financial elites’ bromides given to distract, mollify and suppress the public’s interests.
The question then becomes: “How to turn-out working class voters?” The answer is to have real leaders committed to a coherent message that addresses economic problems individuals struggle to solve by themselves.
And then turn them out to vote!
The answer isn’t mouthing the financial elites’ bromides given to distract, mollify and suppress the public’s interests.
5
"Democrats have become the minority party in the U.S. -Low turnout from the working class and high turn-out from the upper class."
That's not a statement a Democrat could make with a straight face so, for all others reading this comment, this is a typical partisan point of view. Why? Because Mr Howe has evidently not received the memo everyone else here has:
"In 2012, Republicans won a commanding 234-201 majority in the House of Representatives ***despite Democrats receiving more votes*** in congressional races overall."
http://www.propublica.org/article/how-dark-money-helped-republicans-hold...
That's not a statement a Democrat could make with a straight face so, for all others reading this comment, this is a typical partisan point of view. Why? Because Mr Howe has evidently not received the memo everyone else here has:
"In 2012, Republicans won a commanding 234-201 majority in the House of Representatives ***despite Democrats receiving more votes*** in congressional races overall."
http://www.propublica.org/article/how-dark-money-helped-republicans-hold...
3
The Democratic/Labour pitch to working class voters can be summarised: "Vote your own interests. If you elect us we will take from the well-off and give to you". That is such a sweet deal for the target audience, it is astonishing it is not more successful.
In case you forgot, the Democrats won the last 2 presidential election. The Republicans win many state & local elections because of gerrymandering.
Every Labour Government since 1945 has left office with unemployment higher than when it entered, has devalued Sterling, has trashed the economy and left Britain on the point of bankruptcy and has flirted with Socialism in each and every policy decision. That is why it is a relic of the 20th Century. Do not blame the voters.
3
Was it nationalism or true commitment to econimic and social justice that carried the day for the SNP? As for Miliband's backgrounf, remember that great "socialist", FDR, who was an old-family aristocrat, graduate of Groton and Harvard, who won four national elections.
6
Labour lost because its policies were unbelievable, but just as much because like it or not Ed Miliband came across as a charisma free and clumsy, lacklustre leader who from day one every knew was the wrong choice - "the other brother" David Milliband should have won and we all knew it. I say this because over the course of the election I think Ed did exceptionally well at overcoming this - I actually began to like him. Others said the same. Yet in the end the newspapers were vile and ruthless in their portrayal of him, his policies and topped it off with creating the Nightmare of Nicola - whom I heard described as 'like a modern Hitler' which is nonsense. Nicola Sturgeon however terrified the English who felt they would be beholden to the whims of Scotland. Labour also failed to address the huge drift of its core voters to UKIP, whose populist nationalist anti immigration rhetoric appealed to three times the number of voters as did the SNP but under our system got but 1 seat. Labour also failed to attract the Liberal Democrats who almost to a man abandoned their party for the Conservatives.
3
The people of Britain were angry in the last election, but they were not suicidal. They recognized full well that Labour's policies were a dead duck and a plucked goose for the economy. Better to take their chances with a government that just might put a bit more bread on the table. Things are not very different over here. Given a choice Hillary Clinton and four more years of little or no real progress on the job front and an articulate Republican with a fresh face, Americans are likely to choose the latter. So far, Rubio looks like the man.
5
Articulate Republican? Rubio? By what standard? He couldn't even shine in the protected environment of Fox! Imagine him chatting with Putin! Spare me!
3
Ahem, a complex analysis which, I suppose, perhaps sounds true to some. But at the end of the day Labour lost because it was felt in Scotland that it betrayed the Scots, after they voted to stay in the UK and both Labour and Tories quickly retreated away from the promises they made. And in England, it was felt that Labour betrayed the English, as it pursued (mostly as talk) what was interpreted (outside of Scotland) as a pro-Scottish mentality.
Frankly, unless Scotland does terribly under their pro-independence candidates, Labour can only hope that it will appeal to the English again under some guise of ideology yet to be firmed up. But this will be hard to do as England itself starts to see itself as independent from Scotland and Wales. Labour, with Scotland lost forever, might be forced to see itself as a left-of-center English party.
Frankly, unless Scotland does terribly under their pro-independence candidates, Labour can only hope that it will appeal to the English again under some guise of ideology yet to be firmed up. But this will be hard to do as England itself starts to see itself as independent from Scotland and Wales. Labour, with Scotland lost forever, might be forced to see itself as a left-of-center English party.
3
As a "middle-of the-road" Democrat here in the US, I think our presumptive nominee, Mrs. Clinton, has already veered too far left coming out of the gate.
Her first policy pronouncements, put in the crassest terms, are: Let all the non-violent criminals out of jail, spend more money on the black underclass, and give illegal immigrants everything they want.
She seems to be rolling the dice and hoping that this will whip up the liberal base & the young folk. But it obviously comes with the grave risk of alienating that "cautious 15%" of centrist voters mentioned in this article.
Of course, Mrs. Clinton's ace in the hole is the rather spectacularly frightening potential 2016 GOP field---of the 16 declared or potential candidates, I couldn't bring myself to vote for a single one.
However, if the GOP managed to nominate a non-nutty, non-right wing ideologue, I would most likely vote for them as opposed to what I have heard so far of Mrs. Clinton's policy.
Her first policy pronouncements, put in the crassest terms, are: Let all the non-violent criminals out of jail, spend more money on the black underclass, and give illegal immigrants everything they want.
She seems to be rolling the dice and hoping that this will whip up the liberal base & the young folk. But it obviously comes with the grave risk of alienating that "cautious 15%" of centrist voters mentioned in this article.
Of course, Mrs. Clinton's ace in the hole is the rather spectacularly frightening potential 2016 GOP field---of the 16 declared or potential candidates, I couldn't bring myself to vote for a single one.
However, if the GOP managed to nominate a non-nutty, non-right wing ideologue, I would most likely vote for them as opposed to what I have heard so far of Mrs. Clinton's policy.
5
When, exactly, did Mrs. Clinton propose any of those policies? They sound like Fox News sound bites. And the GOP consists entirely of nutty, right-wing ideologues. You won't find an outlier there. I'm not a major Clinton fan, either. But what's my choice? Bobby Jindal?
3
I'm a liberal, as is Bernie Sanders. Clinton is as far right as you can be without being specifically anti-woman or anti-gay. In other words, she's not an evangelical crusader. However, she is a war monger, and beholden to the most powerful financial interests, not just in the U S, but globally.
1
The article, and some of the readers' comments, suggest that there is little the government can do to address income inequality. Nonsense.
There are plenty of things that Government can do to address obscene degrees of income inequality. It can regulate derivatives which make some people very rich because some people are made very poor.
For example, in some derivatives trading, people will bet that other people will lose, e.g. if someone doesn't meet his mortage payments, the guy who bet that the loan would not be repaid gets a hefty profit. This encourages the investor in derivatives to construct booby traps to facilitate non payment of debt.
A basic principle of Insurance Law provides that JOE CANNOT BUY FIRE INSURANCE ON JACK'S HOUSE because then Joe has an incentive to burn down Jack's house.
However, in certain forms of derivatives trading people are essentially betting that other people will lose.
This is why we need an authentic liberal. Bill Ciinton, who was not a true progressive, expressly decided not to regulate derivatives trading. And his decision had toxic effects which created the 2008 meltdown of the economy.
But, as Metternich said, the masses are inert. They are inert because they are ignorant and actually believe that the economy was stricken, in 2008, because some irresponsible people failed to pay their mortage debt.
There are plenty of things that Government can do to address obscene degrees of income inequality. It can regulate derivatives which make some people very rich because some people are made very poor.
For example, in some derivatives trading, people will bet that other people will lose, e.g. if someone doesn't meet his mortage payments, the guy who bet that the loan would not be repaid gets a hefty profit. This encourages the investor in derivatives to construct booby traps to facilitate non payment of debt.
A basic principle of Insurance Law provides that JOE CANNOT BUY FIRE INSURANCE ON JACK'S HOUSE because then Joe has an incentive to burn down Jack's house.
However, in certain forms of derivatives trading people are essentially betting that other people will lose.
This is why we need an authentic liberal. Bill Ciinton, who was not a true progressive, expressly decided not to regulate derivatives trading. And his decision had toxic effects which created the 2008 meltdown of the economy.
But, as Metternich said, the masses are inert. They are inert because they are ignorant and actually believe that the economy was stricken, in 2008, because some irresponsible people failed to pay their mortage debt.
15
I was in my native UK for the election and the period running up to it. I came home to the US with a sinking feeling in my stomach. I had just witnessed a national election where big money played virtually no role, where the election cycle lasts 60 days, where all TV political ads are banned, where there was a media blackout on political stories while the polls were open, where each party has a clear manifesto of pledges you could study and understand, where the candidates were grilled by voters with unrehearsed questions and had to think on their feet to survive, where a 20-year-old (presumably penniless) student could unseat a respected Labour MP in Scotland, and where the leaders of losing parties were brutally honest with themselves and the nation, admitting, if you can believe this, mistakes. Returning to the early stages of the Republican primaries I felt as though I had fallen down the rabbit hole and left sane democracy and governance 3,000 miles behind. The mother country has a lot to teach its wayward progeny.
26
Well, Hillary, did you read this? History might repeat itself rather quickly otherwise
3
The UK Labour Party is a joke. Mr. Mandelson seems to think austerity, which the Labour Party campaigned for, is left-wing. Or perhaps, he just doesn't think about it at all. The UK is in pathetic shape because of their austerity politics. And did Labour fight against this misguided effort? Hardly. UK Labour only represents the working class in name only. They were hardly to the left of the populace - instead, they offered a tepid alternative to the Conservatives.
People such as Peter Mandelson are why there's so much of a wealth divide in not only the UK or the US, but in the Western world. Mandelson wants no party to represent the vast middle class - he wants to consolidate more wealth upon the wealthy. It sounds as if many commenters here haven't read any Paul Krugman; you can read one of his commentary's on the pathetic stands of UK Labour here: http://www.theguardian.com/business/ng-interactive/2015/apr/29/the-auste.... FAIR also debunks the corporate media myth that UK Labour was somehow liberal here: http://fair.org/home/after-labour-loses-with-austerity-us-media-tell-the....
People such as Peter Mandelson are why there's so much of a wealth divide in not only the UK or the US, but in the Western world. Mandelson wants no party to represent the vast middle class - he wants to consolidate more wealth upon the wealthy. It sounds as if many commenters here haven't read any Paul Krugman; you can read one of his commentary's on the pathetic stands of UK Labour here: http://www.theguardian.com/business/ng-interactive/2015/apr/29/the-auste.... FAIR also debunks the corporate media myth that UK Labour was somehow liberal here: http://fair.org/home/after-labour-loses-with-austerity-us-media-tell-the....
5
I watched SKY NEWs a lot during the campaign. I felt that the singularly most powerful argument was tying Miliband to the SNP. The election posters of Alex Sammond picking the pocket of Miliband was winning poster. Also Nicola Sturgeon with her brash, outspoken nationalism and how the SNP would control the government, really scared a lot of people.
To me it was the effective use of tying the SNP to Labor that was the deciding factor in the vote.
To me it was the effective use of tying the SNP to Labor that was the deciding factor in the vote.
4
The history of UK is a clear cut proof that from the Monarchy down it is build on a system of inequality and indifference of the rich upper classes, aristocrats, the Royals to the poor masses , and to that end the upper end of the labor party hierarchy the likes of Tony Blair, brothers ED and David Miliband (Jewish) are well off. As compared to ordinary working class British.
I do not believe that any body can truly analyse the win by British Conservatives and loss by British Labor unless actual number of votes cast in each constituency as compared to number of illegible voters in the same constituency. Then, considering the flawed election system in the world over and the party in control, there is always possibility of voter fraud, miscount, right out deceit and vote rigging cannot be ruled out. Like in the US it is also possible that one too many poor and working class masses are discouraged to vote. Notwithstanding that there is a mass public apathy among the voters and they just do not care. After all there is not much difference between the self interest and self righteous politicians in the US and UK. In the US over 90% of the people have no confidence in the US Congress, and nor is there real true representation of the people.
I do not believe that any body can truly analyse the win by British Conservatives and loss by British Labor unless actual number of votes cast in each constituency as compared to number of illegible voters in the same constituency. Then, considering the flawed election system in the world over and the party in control, there is always possibility of voter fraud, miscount, right out deceit and vote rigging cannot be ruled out. Like in the US it is also possible that one too many poor and working class masses are discouraged to vote. Notwithstanding that there is a mass public apathy among the voters and they just do not care. After all there is not much difference between the self interest and self righteous politicians in the US and UK. In the US over 90% of the people have no confidence in the US Congress, and nor is there real true representation of the people.
1
What does the Judaism of David and Ed Miliband have to do with anything?
1
The ruling class on both sides of the pond only protest the class war being waged against them, but have no qualms about the class war they have been successfully waging against working people for decades. The former is a mythical notion that has not affected the wealthy one bit - the latter has devastated the working classes and caused untold misery and hopelessness.
"Untold" because the media and the politicians only recognize the former.
"Untold" because the media and the politicians only recognize the former.
10
Thoughtful Op-Ed, thanks for publishing. It is possible to weigh the costs of promised policies on the campaign trail and their effect on voters. But perhaps, could it still be that perceived character/personality of the candidate (in this case party leader) sways the vote. And in this case there might have been a lingering question of what sort of character Ed Miliband displayed when he stepped on/over/aside his able, elder brother to gain Labour's leadership.
The choice was made when Gordon Brown became PM. On one hand, Tony Blair had embraced a populist all inclusive society. On the other, Mr. Brown wanted the government to do more for those who hadn't done as well. Mr. Blair won and Mr. Brown lost. What then of the Milibands, Ed followed Mr. Brown's lead and David was a politician in the mold of Mr. Blair, Ed Milliband went down with the Labour Ship. Maybe David Milliband or another Labour party member will remember how Mr. Blair resurrected Labour.
Labour lost in GB for the same reason the left regularly loses in the U.S., low turnout. Until the leaders on the left, and it should be added, poll-addled pundits and journalists, get this fact into their skulls, the rightists on both sides of the pond will ride the waves of money and apathy to victory.
"So there was a race to see whose rhetoric would attract the most votes, which the Conservatives won. Why? Partly because the rest of us do not pay for rich people’s wealth."
Guess the Brits tax system must not include a mortgage interest deduction like the US does, resulting in the US in middle and lower income tax payers subsidizing not only the home purchases of the rich, but their yachts as well.
Guess the Brits tax system must not include a mortgage interest deduction like the US does, resulting in the US in middle and lower income tax payers subsidizing not only the home purchases of the rich, but their yachts as well.
3
When Alberta ended 80 years of right wing governance and 444 years of Conservative party rule the mood in Alberta was not celebratory but one of relief. People vote for perceived leadership and competence not ideology.The Conservatives promised austerity and continuation in stormy sea that were looking ever more treacherous.
The New Democratic Party promised a new capable hand at the wheel and the ability to alter course.
The New Democratic Party promised a new capable hand at the wheel and the ability to alter course.
3
The author almost admits that Maggie Thatcher had it right…that the left eventually runs out of other people's money to advance its agenda and inevitably degrades the opportunities for its citizens to improve their lot, let alone prosper. The voters understood that and acted accordingly.
1
My impression is that party organization at the local level has eroded sharply, both in the UK and in the US. Campaigns are now conducted through mass media, political consultants and pollsters. Old partisan allegiances have been replaced by sound bites. The result has been a general disconnect between citizens and the elites who govern us.
SNP's astounding success is perhaps due to a regional party organization built up at the constituency level during the referendum campaign? Speculation on my part.
SNP's astounding success is perhaps due to a regional party organization built up at the constituency level during the referendum campaign? Speculation on my part.
While I am a casual observer of EU and UK politics, I am astounded this 'analysis' does not mention the immigration issue at all. IMO the voters are not happy with the prospect of even more immigrants entering UK. Labour welcomes immigration because they believe it delivers more votes for Labour.
it's not just about economy. It's about who will be my neighbor.
it's not just about economy. It's about who will be my neighbor.
3
Labour lost because Labour offered nothing that was much different or much better than what the Tories offered. Under Tony Blair, the Labour Party became the light version of the Tories. Like beer, if you have a choice between the real thing and the lighter version, you might as well choose the real thing, even if it's more unhealthy than the lighter version. But I hope this does lead to the UK leaving the EU; the Brits NEVER contributed anything to the EU. And this will then lead to Scotland finally leaving the UK, which has always exploited Scotland while giving Scots little in return. Independence will be tough...but when it's come to having the English as one's friends or one's enemies, it doesn't really matter.
When pondering their party's steadily declining fortunes in state, local and federal non-presidential elections, Democrats would do well to read and take to heart Mr. Mandelson's analysis of UK Labour's failures. If Democrats don't do something, they are on the way to becoming a regional party appealing only to the West Coast and Northeastern elites.
2
Surely there is a lesson here for Hilary Clinton, that just bashing the rich and talking about equality is not going to do it. The Democrats have to come up with a plan which will brings some equality of wages and salaries into the economy. A very brave article I think.
3
Labor lost the election because Britons are satisfied by the way their country is growing. No one wants a return to the dogmatic socialism of the Labor Party.
Wish we could learn that lesson here!
Wish we could learn that lesson here!
2
The Labour Party lost not because championing the cause of poor and the middle class but for having failed to offer a concrete policy plan of action which could sound convincing to the common man.
1
For exactly the same reasons, Americans don't like the class warfare inherent in the democrats' "income inequality" meme. Even the great Professor Krugman after expounding on it one Sunday morning, when asked for a remedy, could come up with little more than raising the minimum wage to address it.
Because it is the wrong description of the problem, one that polls well, sounds right to certain ears, appeals strongly to those who are angry (which is almost all of us) but which defies solutions because it frames the problem poorly.
Never mind that it causes Americans to bristle at the idea of "haves" vs. "have nots". That's just an unappealing mixture of self-righteousness and self-pity.
Because it is the wrong description of the problem, one that polls well, sounds right to certain ears, appeals strongly to those who are angry (which is almost all of us) but which defies solutions because it frames the problem poorly.
Never mind that it causes Americans to bristle at the idea of "haves" vs. "have nots". That's just an unappealing mixture of self-righteousness and self-pity.
13
the "haves" support the GOP/T in return for a change in tax laws to favor themselves. They do not consider this class warfare, but it is thinly disguised bribery.
1
Really, AACNY? You're going to use the stunted American 'Sunday morning' news show to illustrate Krugman's alleged paucity of solutions? Everyone knows the days of being given even 5 minutes to expound on an idea before either a commercial break or a switch to another guest are long gone. These shows are for those with soundbites. And Krugman had his most potent one chambered: start with a living minimum wage. If that gets traction, everything else follows.
So, AACNY, that wasn't Krugman with a lack of solutions, it was Krugman choosing his best weapon.
So, AACNY, that wasn't Krugman with a lack of solutions, it was Krugman choosing his best weapon.
1
As an exiled Scot, and one who does not support independence, I would argue that the biggest contribution to Labour's defeat was their alignment with the Scottish National Party and the backlash that provoked in constituencies in England. With the advent of "American style" electioneering, especially with the preponderance of negative advertising, people are less inclined to vote on policy and more inclined to vote "their gut". We may use of brain to speak to pollsters, but we use our hearts to vote, Scotland went SNP to advance their own causes, England went conservative to protect against the Scottish tail wagging the Labour dog, its that simple.
33
Everything was working against the Labour Party. The fact that they stood with the tories at the independence referendum was the disastrous. Not only the loss of the Scottish seats, but also a fear generated in England that the SNP would have too much influence on a Labour led government.
1
Ms Sturgeon, the leader of the SNP, was also - far and away - the most sophisticated user of "social media" and I am certain that that counted for a great deal.
As for "American style electioneering" there is a sorry tale to tell about the Americanization of the UK; from ultra-expensive funerals to the commodification of higher education. One of the manifestations of this was the way in which the election centered on "which man to you want in [the White House] 10 Downing Street - Cameron or Miliband?"
And Lord Mandelson has a vested interest in promoting the corporate form of democracy as distinct from the kind of social democracy the world needs so much. He was Blair's favorite architect.
As for "American style electioneering" there is a sorry tale to tell about the Americanization of the UK; from ultra-expensive funerals to the commodification of higher education. One of the manifestations of this was the way in which the election centered on "which man to you want in [the White House] 10 Downing Street - Cameron or Miliband?"
And Lord Mandelson has a vested interest in promoting the corporate form of democracy as distinct from the kind of social democracy the world needs so much. He was Blair's favorite architect.
7
Mr. Mandelson would like to believe that Labour was too left-wing for the voters. How then does he explain that the SNP, well to the left of Labour, did spectacularly well, particularly on the heels of a decisive rejection of separation less than nine months ago?
Labour gave the voters a choice between real conservatives and pretend conservatives. They're surprised that those who voted, chose real conservatives. They shouldn't be.
I expect that Mr. Cameron will need to call another election in the next twenty-four months. It's hard to see how the 99% in the UK will put up with yet another round of austerity that serves only to transfer money to the 1%.
Labour gave the voters a choice between real conservatives and pretend conservatives. They're surprised that those who voted, chose real conservatives. They shouldn't be.
I expect that Mr. Cameron will need to call another election in the next twenty-four months. It's hard to see how the 99% in the UK will put up with yet another round of austerity that serves only to transfer money to the 1%.
28
Precisely! Labour lost the elections because Blair, Mandelson and their friends turned the party into a bloc party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloc_party_(politics)) of neoliberal orthodoxy. If that is the only realistic choice, one might as well vote for the real version.
How does he explain the SNP? The Scots are famously fervent for a socialist welfare state. That has nothing to do with England and its voters.
Even assuming that Cameron will implement "yet another round of austerity", kindly explain how it "transfers" money to the 1%. Presumably it only means that the Government is spending less money or the increase in spending is less than it might be. Doesn't that mean that the 1% are transferring less than they might have? The State does not own their earnings.
Even assuming that Cameron will implement "yet another round of austerity", kindly explain how it "transfers" money to the 1%. Presumably it only means that the Government is spending less money or the increase in spending is less than it might be. Doesn't that mean that the 1% are transferring less than they might have? The State does not own their earnings.
With respect, you do not know what you're talking about - first of all, as someone else has argued well, austerity doesn't "transfer" anything to the top 1% of earners. Secondly, Cameron couldn't call another election in 2 years even if he wanted to - the Fixed Term Parliaments Act requires a 2/3 majority vote of the entire House of Commons (i.e., seats that are vacant are included in the denominator, which isn't usually the case with parliamentary votes) to dissolve the government, which is an almost insurmountable hurdle for an insurgency to bring down an unpopular prime minister, and would certainly bring about Cameron's own political end - if it happened he wouldn't be calling anything except moving companies.
"(except when they cheat on their taxes)"
With this remark Mandelson must think we've forgotten his own financial scandals and disgraces whilst in government.
With this remark Mandelson must think we've forgotten his own financial scandals and disgraces whilst in government.
14
You may recall Lord Mandelson once said words to the effect that he's "intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich under Labour". Those words will haunt him till he dies, but that's because they always conveniently forget to tack on what he finished it with - "so long as they pay their taxes".
While Mandelson has had his fair share of financial troubles, I don't recall him being in tax trouble - it was more "the appearance of impropriety" that did for him if I remember correctly.
While Mandelson has had his fair share of financial troubles, I don't recall him being in tax trouble - it was more "the appearance of impropriety" that did for him if I remember correctly.
Labour lost in UK 2015 for 2 reasons.
No.1, they didn't have the organisation or courage to fire Milliband a year before the election. They were all happy to wait for someone else to do the deed. The voters could see that they had no competence to govern.
The second reason was the brought in a US special adviser, who thought in American terms and couldn't see what you have to do to win new supporters, and was stuck in the old idea of hanging onto your traditional diehard voting base.
There was a third reason, as Mandelson alluded to -they couldn't dare say how they would implement any policy.
No.1, they didn't have the organisation or courage to fire Milliband a year before the election. They were all happy to wait for someone else to do the deed. The voters could see that they had no competence to govern.
The second reason was the brought in a US special adviser, who thought in American terms and couldn't see what you have to do to win new supporters, and was stuck in the old idea of hanging onto your traditional diehard voting base.
There was a third reason, as Mandelson alluded to -they couldn't dare say how they would implement any policy.
13
I wouldn't set too much store by Labour bringing in David Axelrod to work on the campaign - the Tories brought in Jim Messina, another Obama campaigner. Let them cancel each other out!
I identify with Labour and would have voted for the party had the leader been at all believable in the prime minister role. Frankly, I could not bear the thought of listening for the next five years to Ed Miliband's nasal intonations and watching his awkward "Wallace" presence-- even scruffy Gorden Brown was better. As intelligent citizens, we like to think of ourselves as giving primary weight to the policies and issues and the overall worthiness of candidates, but in reality the electorate vote for people they like and their policy positions are not taken as seriously as self-regarding politicians would prefer to believe. (Otherwise, how do you explain that UKIP attracted nearly 4m votes... with such a dire party organisation, low grade communications, and odious policies, yet they had an interesting, personable and indeed somewhat charismatic leader.) Ed Miliband was not liked, and in many quarters was actively despised, and I would suggest that this had more to do with his fundamental inability to believably "sell" himself and his platform to the people. The refusal of his party to recognise that he was terribly miscast in the role of a future PM and indeed his own lack of self-awareness of the limitations of his public persona are what inevitably led to Labour's crushing defeat. Political analysts really want to believe that the electorate puts such deep and serious thought into policy positions, however in reality elections inevitably boil down to a personality contest.
8
If it salves the British left to pretend "the rest of us do not pay for rich people’s wealth" then by all means.... But I don't buy the premise. The rich surely have a larger footprint on society then the rest of us. They use more stuff the rest of us pay for: roads, energy, airports, space, fire protection, everything. Our taxes are higher than necessary because of the tax breaks the rich get. Our governments pay more attention to the rich than they do to the rest of us so the rich get more consideration and rubbed elbows. It's much more likely that those rubbed elbows make it all the more likely that my vote won't fix my problems. At least here in America, government runs on private money. It doesn't work for me.
But rather than be discouraged, working people should be enraged. Their vote is the only thing the rich haven't taken (yet), so not voting is defeatist capitulation. Unthinkable.
But rather than be discouraged, working people should be enraged. Their vote is the only thing the rich haven't taken (yet), so not voting is defeatist capitulation. Unthinkable.
58
Over half of US "taxpayers" pay zero federal income taxes yet the feds collect hundreds of billions every year. That is because the hated corporations and the hated wealthy pay up for the rest of society who gets a free ride.
That's an interesting theory. The top 10% of earners pay 68% of all taxes after all of the breaks you worry about. And you think that they get more than 68% of all benefits provided by the Federal government? and that they don't pay for 68% of all infrastructure and improvements? Fire protection and sanitation? Poor neighborhoods have a far greater use of those services.
These well made points can apply here. A progressive agenda cannot isolate itself from capitalism or free markets nor make the wealthy an enemy. But it does need to embrace ideas that "tone down" inequality and make sense to voters. What government does, it should do well. Raising efficiency and reducing waste would go a long way toward appealing to the middle.
10
Ken Wallace:
"A progressive agenda cannot isolate itself from capitalism or free markets nor make the wealthy an enemy."
These are wise words. The far left base of the Democratic Party has lost sight of how this country functions best. It is not without ties to business and through a centralized controlling federal government.
"A progressive agenda cannot isolate itself from capitalism or free markets nor make the wealthy an enemy."
These are wise words. The far left base of the Democratic Party has lost sight of how this country functions best. It is not without ties to business and through a centralized controlling federal government.
4
Complete bs, AACNY. There IS no 'far left' to speak of in the Dem party, or anywhere else in the US worthy of the name, and certainly none that would publicly disavow capitalism. Such are the fever-dreams of Fox News watchers, to imagine 'leftists' (as if they even know what one is). Bernie Sanders himself, about as left as it gets in the Dem party, has never disavowed capitalism. Sought its reform, perhaps; denounced the fantasy of 'free markets' perhaps, but he's never disowned capitalism.
Most on the left understand the epoch-shaking power of capitalism in human history. And far from killing the golden goose (as the free-marketers would, in their zeal to conform economics to their ideology, nevermind the consequences) the Left simply wants a capitalism in partnership with society and governance. One that recognizes its place within society, rather than one that seeks outright dominance of society with the dismemberment of the state in favor of a business unfettered by any obligation beyond generating maximum profits at all costs.
Most on the left understand the epoch-shaking power of capitalism in human history. And far from killing the golden goose (as the free-marketers would, in their zeal to conform economics to their ideology, nevermind the consequences) the Left simply wants a capitalism in partnership with society and governance. One that recognizes its place within society, rather than one that seeks outright dominance of society with the dismemberment of the state in favor of a business unfettered by any obligation beyond generating maximum profits at all costs.
And entire article on the election that did not mention UKIP? Ok.
8
with one MP, how much of a mention do they deserve?
3
Simple: Look at the vote counts, not the MP. The "first past the post" is the only reason UKIP has only one MP.
Before or after reading this article, I suggest the readers do a quick search on the dubious background of Mr Mandelson to see just why he is at fault for the demise of Labour just as much as anyone.
17
Mandy is as out of touch as the rest of his party. The "working classes" that were traditional labour voters have gone with the steel mills, coal mines, shipyards and factories. The kids of those Labour voters now have mortgages, take holidays in Ibiza and run two cars, but their grandchildren face Labour's university fees or low-paid service industry jobs in competition with hordes of the labour Party's favoured immigrants. Labour is now the party of the welfare claimant, the unskilled immigrant, the low-grade public sector employee and a handful of North London self-styled "metrosexual" intellectuals. It is finished. It is an ex-parrot. If not totally dead, it has been coughing up blood for ten years. It is no longer fixable and must go the way of the Peelites or Mosley's fascists. That an outsider, nominally conservative, anti-Europe, pro-British party (UKIP) could take so many votes away from labour in their Northern heartlands and a National-Socialist anti-intellectual party could totally destroy Labour in Scotland--where they started over a century ago, should be the end-sign to even the most arrogant Labourite.
19
Also, the bacon sandwich…..
1
I agree with this post. What I look for in the next leader of my party is someone who has the confidence, vision and charisma to tackle the tough decisions and make the tough choices. He or she must have be willing to challenge the vested interests in the Labour Party if we are ever to challenge vested interests in the UK. It is absolutely vital that the new leader understands that the way our party operates must change. We must listen to voters more, engage with our communities and our internal structures must be reformed radically so that this can be achieved more easily. I blogged some initial thoughts on this at LabourList last week http://slingerblog.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/my-labourlist-oped-we-must-dis....
1
Words spoken by Peter Mandelson aka the Prince of Darkness are to be With a pinch of salt. Mandelson was the brains behind Blair and had to resign on one or more occasions before being shipped off to the EU.
Miliband lost the election because of the fear of a coalition between the SNP/Labour. The quiet Conservatives came out and voted not necessarily because they liked the Conservativrs but what they feared.
Labour has still not acknowledged the free spending days of Blair and Brown: Milliband not apologising for the mess did not help. Ed Milliband was never the right choice for Labour but succeeded because of the union vote.
Labour lost the elections due to the fact that they didn't have an alternative to the Conservatives.
Miliband lost the election because of the fear of a coalition between the SNP/Labour. The quiet Conservatives came out and voted not necessarily because they liked the Conservativrs but what they feared.
Labour has still not acknowledged the free spending days of Blair and Brown: Milliband not apologising for the mess did not help. Ed Milliband was never the right choice for Labour but succeeded because of the union vote.
Labour lost the elections due to the fact that they didn't have an alternative to the Conservatives.
22
All these policy reasons are interesting, but I think the overwhelming reason was that Miliband did not look like a prime minister and did not sound like a prime minister, which had to have troubled even voters who agreed with him.
20
How could you honestly avoid a discussion about immigration?
16
We do so in the US, where our politicians, economists, and columnists live in a world where the law of supply and demand somehow does not apply to labor, because their own jobs are secure.
Although exact comparisons between the British and American electoral systems are, obviously, impossible, Labour's devastating defeat should at least bring a measure of caution to those in the Democratic Party who yearn for a presidential nominee like Elizabeth Warren. It is true that Hillary Clinton might not be the ideal candidate for 2016. Her many flaws are well-known and, seemingly, revealed again and again for a scandal-hungry public. She is, however, the most qualified and, for 2016, the most reasonable. It's time for the "progressive" wing of the Democratic Party to understand this and put their more radical Utopian ideas permanently on the back burner.
10
Tony Blair made Labour into the Conservatives Lite. Hillary Clinton would have the Democrats be Republicans Lite. If people are becoming cynical about politics, perhaps this is the reason why.
And if my reading of the election results is correct, Labour actually gained some seats outside of Scotland.
Finally, regarding the idea that someone who isn't born among the peasantry can't relate to them, FDR and Robert Kennedy, among others, did a pretty good job of doing just that.
And if my reading of the election results is correct, Labour actually gained some seats outside of Scotland.
Finally, regarding the idea that someone who isn't born among the peasantry can't relate to them, FDR and Robert Kennedy, among others, did a pretty good job of doing just that.
47
I would challenge your assertion that Hillary Clinton is the "most reasonable." She is extreme in two areas: Being morally challenged, borderline corrupt, and in her paranoia. It's not difficult to see her turning into a Richard Nixon once in office.
4
After seeing recent similar knee-jerk boilerplate comments by AACNY, I no longer take any of them seriously.
1
A similar analysis is needed in the United States. Mandelson is beginning to answer the statesman-likes question "What would Labour do in power?" Here, poll-driven politicians try to find a way to nomination by their parties which does not preclude a path to a majority in the Electoral College. Two vastly different approaches. One looks beyond election day while the other looks only at election day.
2
Ed couldn't get his message across because, and this is what a lot of people felt, that message was sheep's clothing - underneath there was a socialist agenda of big state mendling waiting for power, the final straw was when we saw that with an SNP party wagging it, Labour would fall all too easily into the tax and spend economy wreckers of the past.
An example was Ed saying he was going to "Freeze" energy prices, not cap them - Labour may have meant cap all along but once they pushed the freeze line they couldn't row back and refused to say they meant cap not freeze - arrogant and sloppy use of language left many wondering if there was any authenticity in the message or Ed at all.
An example was Ed saying he was going to "Freeze" energy prices, not cap them - Labour may have meant cap all along but once they pushed the freeze line they couldn't row back and refused to say they meant cap not freeze - arrogant and sloppy use of language left many wondering if there was any authenticity in the message or Ed at all.
9
Doesn't this reporter do more or less what he chides Labour for doing:
"For a start, a party committed to radical change has to be careful in balancing its message."
Yet he is careful not to talk about what the "radical change" envisioned by him or Labour actually looks like. Voters are wary of undefined radicalism, as they should be.
"For a start, a party committed to radical change has to be careful in balancing its message."
Yet he is careful not to talk about what the "radical change" envisioned by him or Labour actually looks like. Voters are wary of undefined radicalism, as they should be.
6
Agree with this assessment but wish to point out that messaging or rhetoric was the least of Labour's faults this time round. By far the greatest obstacle was convincing us they are economically literate and would not wreck the modest gains the UK has made since the recession.
Unfortunately Milliband was not reassuring on that account. We are but a hop over the English channel from France, with it's intractable unemployment, pervasive bureaucracy and massive professional brain drain - in fact, we are beneficiaries of it. Few people want to go down the same path.
Unfortunately Milliband was not reassuring on that account. We are but a hop over the English channel from France, with it's intractable unemployment, pervasive bureaucracy and massive professional brain drain - in fact, we are beneficiaries of it. Few people want to go down the same path.
7
Get real, need to be pragmatic, just as Blair was with his Third Way/corporatist vapidity. He allowed the Centre to drift ever Rightward, just as his guru Bill Clinton did.
Don't know the British stats. They do have the worst wealth disparity in Western Europe. I do know that wealth disparity spiked here under Clinton.
Obama's tenure seems to be going the same direction.
Don't know the British stats. They do have the worst wealth disparity in Western Europe. I do know that wealth disparity spiked here under Clinton.
Obama's tenure seems to be going the same direction.
15
@Clark Shanahan: Have you already forgotten St. Feed-the-Rich George W. Bush? Amazing.
Thomas,
I volunteered in both elections, working against Dubya's election. I was against the Iraq fiasco from the start.
I never said Dubya was preferable.
Please visit inequality.org and read the facts.
I volunteered in both elections, working against Dubya's election. I was against the Iraq fiasco from the start.
I never said Dubya was preferable.
Please visit inequality.org and read the facts.
This is an eminently sensible piece that, unfortunately, does not look far or deep enough. I cannot agree more with the author that Labor did not have “any realistic program to reform the economy” and his criticism of the new contenders for party leadership who sound more like “continuity and an unwillingness to make hard policy choices.” However, his own call for reforming the economy “in a redistributive way” also sounds no less like continuity. It appears that the problem lies much deeper than unfortunate choices made by the Labor leadership. It appears that the party has no new vision and no new choices, just the old ones. If there is a lesson here for the U.S., it is that the Democrats may suffer a similar fate in the next election. They will also try to appeal for redistribution and social justice without having “any realistic program to reform the economy.” They may also end up being polarizing rather than consensus building. And, as a result, the next elections in this country will most likely be a replay of the recent elections in Britain.
4
There are two sections of this article which I agree do point to the Labour loss: “Labour suffered from too much uncertainty about its program, and its leader’s credibility, to withstand fears among English voters of Scottish nationalist influence.”
However, it was no secret that southern England is Tory-land. For Labour, as once for the old Liberal Party, the peripheries have been strongholds in a time of loss of manufacturing jobs. But Wales has gone nationalist and so too has Scotland. Labour is squeezed into northern England.
The second clue is in the mini-bio at the end. The writer was “a cabinet minister under Prime Ministers Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.” Blair disgraced himself and Labour in a way that will take generations to expunge. Brown, never overly charismatic, alienated Scotland by playing a key role in getting out the No vote in the independence referendum.
However, it was no secret that southern England is Tory-land. For Labour, as once for the old Liberal Party, the peripheries have been strongholds in a time of loss of manufacturing jobs. But Wales has gone nationalist and so too has Scotland. Labour is squeezed into northern England.
The second clue is in the mini-bio at the end. The writer was “a cabinet minister under Prime Ministers Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.” Blair disgraced himself and Labour in a way that will take generations to expunge. Brown, never overly charismatic, alienated Scotland by playing a key role in getting out the No vote in the independence referendum.
13
The trouble with anti-capitalism is that people want the profits of capitalism.
21
Labour does not actually champion "anti-capitalism." No mainstream liberal party in the Western world does. Some conservatives, however, seem to have a very tenuous grasp of what capitalism means. Capitalism does not mean no taxes and no social welfare. In fact, taxes that pay for social and economic infrastructure (including safety nets for the poor) are necessary for a stable environment for capital investment. You only need look at countries where the destitute are left destitute. The risk of social unrest and, in some cases revolution, is very bad for investments. You want capitalism to work? Make some sound investments in a stable society.
68
Maybe Labour doesn't traditionally champion anti-capitalism, but Ed Milliband does. He is a self-described socialist. I agree 100% with what you're saying about safety nets for the poor, but Ed wanted to take it too far away from capitalism - even from capitalism the way you describe it, capitalism with a sense of social responsibility.
Please consider submitting articles to the NYT more frequently.