The false dichotomy

Anonymous X Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:38:44 AM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

If there's one argument that's tired and worn-out it's the commonly wheeled-out view in this site that a.) going in the McDonnell policy direction will save us b.) going back to the Blairite policy direction will save us.



There's plenty of space in the 'centre' of andin between the two extreme wings of the party, and political landscape, to offer us positive and workable solutions. Be imaginative. The New Labour group are correct that, realistically, the LRC direction wouldn't really work in Britain as it is now, and would get a hammering by the corporate media (whom unfortunately have a very significant influence upon people's perceptions of politics), and likely repel the voters that have supported Labour since 1994. However, the Left are also correct, it is time to move away from Blairism, which has moved so far into centre-right territory, ignoring and impoverishing the traditionally Labour core voters whom Labour was created in order to represent. Ideally, we need a 'mix and match' approach to create an governmental programme, melding the most effective, democratically chosen and popular policy ideas from each and every group within the Labour family - a broad church, if you will. It's better to have a compromising Labour government, which avoids ideological purity (from either wing of the party) than a Tory government.



tags: , , , , , (all tags)

Display: Sort:
The false dichotomy | 11 comments (11 topical)

Re: The false dichotomy (#1)

by doctordunc on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:54:11 AM GMT

I'm all for the broad church and, considering what's gone before, would be very far from calling for ideological purity in the government.  But I have to say I fail to see anything 'extreme' in the sorts of policies being proposed.  They strike me as just the sort of compromise we need.


Re: The false dichotomy (#2)

by e10rifles on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:34:32 AM GMT

"The New Labour group are correct that, realistically, the LRC direction wouldn't really work in Britain as it is now"

Please explain, specifically, which policies and why.

Other than a general tabloid fear of "loony lefties", what exactly would be catastrophically unpopular about any of the policies proposed by the McDonnell May Manifesto?


Re: The false dichotomy (#3)

by grimupnorth on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:26:26 PM GMT

Absolutely  - we are not  calling for  the nationalisation of the  commanding  heights of the economy - there is  nothing "extreme" about any of the measures. So sign up to them at www.johnmcdonnell.org.uk


[ Parent ]

Re: The false dichotomy (#5)

by jljb2 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:28:38 PM GMT

Yes, the LRC agenda is essentially social-democratic: my fear is that it would be better put forward by someone not tainted by 'far-left' association. However, since JM has had to courage to make the case, I support him fully: it says a great deal about the weakness of the PLP centre-left, however, and might reduce the chances of our getting elected on such a platform. But I think he stands a hell of a lot better chance than Brown! 


[ Parent ]

Re: The false dichotomy (#4)

by jkitleft on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:00:05 PM GMT

I agree. I can't agree with Bennite politics (partlly because I'm not the greatest fan of him personally). But the problem with this government, is that it has been playing electoral politics abysmally- the public are more left-wing then they think.

54% agreed with not renewing Trident
70% agreed with redistributing wealth
66% agreed with workers being able to negotiate working hours

I'm not suggesting unilateral disarmament for instance (I support multilateral disarmament), but 20 years ago, supporting non-proliferation would not be nearly as widely supported. Ditto for redistributing wealth. And two-thirds have proclaimed their support for elements of co-operatives. The government can persue a progressive agenda: not Bennism or Blairism, without facing electoral suicide.

A progressive agenda could sweep up mountains of electoral votes. If there was an Agency Worker's Bill, with added rights for individual workers (I don't support repealing the so-called 'anti-tarde union' acts), it could help solidify at least 1.4 million votes. If we were more progressive on issues like care for the elderly, there's at least another 400,000 votes there (and the elderly are generally Conservative supporters, so another added bonus). You can think of other examples I'm sure.


Re: The false dichotomy (#6)

by doctordunc on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:37:36 PM GMT

Have you read the Trade Union Freedom Bill?  I get the impression, from several comments, that people have misunderstood it.

(PS: Tony is a dude)


[ Parent ]

Re: The false dichotomy (#7)

by doctordunc on Wed May 07, 2008 at 09:37:54 PM GMT

Benn, not Blair that is!!!


[ Parent ]

Re: The false dichotomy (#8)

by jkitleft on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:06:45 PM GMT

Well, I personally don't trust Benn as much as others. I do not think he is a nasty man, at all. Nor an oppertunist. But he was rather too quick to dismiss the record of the Callaghan government after Thatcher was elected. I think that before he was certainly not to the left of the Bevanite wing. He was not on the SDP wing either. But I do believe that he also denied progressive government to this country in the '80's. The Labour party as we know it (rather too New Labour, I'll agree with you on that), would not exist had Benn become Deputy Leader in 1981. There was a dismissal of the broad church, by trying to de-select anyone on the right from some of Benn's supporters. Benn was not responsible for it personally, but he did not condemn it either. As good old Michael Foot puts it (yes I connected the words 'good' and 'Michael Foot', as I think he was a great writer on anti-totalitarianism, whether communist or fascist), Benn is a good person at persuading himself. 


[ Parent ]

Re: The false dichotomy (#9)

by jkitleft on Thu May 08, 2008 at 04:09:04 PM GMT

P.S. I was suprised by what I found in the Trade Union Freedom Bill. But it should more appropriately be named a Worker's Rights Bill. The current name is misleading. People hear it, and they hear an attempt to repeal all of Thatcher's employment laws. Elements of the bill, could be written into a beefed-up Agency Worker's bill.


[ Parent ]

Re: The false dichotomy (#10)

by doctordunc on Thu May 08, 2008 at 08:27:55 PM GMT

He was invited to join the Bevanite Group in the 50s (his father was an associate) but was worried about what he'd heard about the group having whips, etc.  He was a rebel on nuclear issues at the time, and very committed to the colonial freedom movement.  Sure, he's changed his minds on some things (most sensible people do!) but he's been pretty consistent on democracy, equality, peace and anti-imperialism.    Tony's 'crime' in the '80s was to try and make the Labour Party vaguely democratic in terms of policy.  He never really succeeded, but I trust we all try again in the current 'consultation'!


[ Parent ]

Re: The false dichotomy (#11)

by Free Radical on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:45:28 PM GMT

The lasting legacy of the 80s reforms to the party championed by Tony Benn is the ability to elect our leader and deputy leader. And we saw how valuable was the deputy leadership contest recently. And we can imagine how valuable a leadership contest might have been too (including to Gordon Brown of course).


[ Parent ]

The false dichotomy | 11 comments (11 topical)