Labour defeat in Henley

Radford Mann Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 03:46:08 PM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

Losing to the Conservatives in Henley was not a surprise; the sheer scale of the defeat was. Can there really be any further demonstration required of the need to change direction?



Finishing behind the Green Party candidate showed that folks just don't take seriously the government's claims of environmental friendliness. And why should they what with, inter alia, promoting airport expansion and nuclear power and failing to approve the feed in tarrif for micro-generation?

Coming behind the BNP, however, marks a new low and shows just how far the party has abandoned a key section of its electoral coalition to its fate.

The game is now surely up for New Labour. You've been rumbled. Without a clear move in the direction of the agenda being developed by Compass and the broader left, defeat will not just stare us in the face; it'll give us a great big Glasgow kiss. 



tags: , , (all tags)

Display: Sort:
Labour defeat in Henley | 55 comments (55 topical)

Re: Labour defeat in Henley (#1)

by RedRooster on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 04:45:20 PM GMT

What utter rubbish. So the literally dozens of core Labour voters in Henley decided to vote Lib Dem instead.  So what?  Anyone trying to draw some kind of profound lesson from a by election result in a safe Tory constituency must be madder than... well, David Davis actually.


Re: Labour defeat in Henley (#3)

by Floating voter on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 04:57:05 PM GMT

Utter rubbish? Since when was Labour supposed to finish behind the BNP or the Greens? They are fringe parties for goodness sake.

The message is loud and clear.


Re: Labour defeat in Henley (#4)

by NB on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 05:07:37 PM GMT


Branding depends on the quality and desirability of the original product. In Brown's case that's profoundly sub-optimal. Re-branding Brown would be like chrome-plating slurry: difficult and useless.


Re: Labour defeat in Henley (#5)

by Prbo on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 05:09:20 PM GMT

Due to overwhelming calls from the electorate to do so...?


Re: Labour defeat in Henley (#7)

by CitizenAndreas on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 06:27:15 PM GMT

The electorate seems pretty agnostic about moving left or right. It's just that moving left is the right thing to do.


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour defeat in Henley (#6)

by purplemeanie on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 05:19:23 PM GMT

Last time 14% of the electorate voted Labour, this time it was down to 3%.  In other words, 80% of those voting Labour last time, this time chose either to vote for any other party (including the tories and the BNP) or to stay at home, rather than vote labour.

 Presumably the 14% who voted Labour last time knew it was unwinnable for us then, too, so that argument doesn't explain anything.  The fact they have deserted the party in droves is ominous to say the least, the fact that it is in a seat with a natural tory majority isn't particularly comforting, given the calamitous and hardly surprising state of the polls.

 I think i've posted this somewhere else on this board (sorry) but frankly if people don't want two terms of tory misrule we'd better get a PR bill through parliament PDQ.

In fact i am baffled as to why so many labour people seem more willing to face another decade or more in the total wilderness, than contemplate moving towards a fairer electoral system!

Is it something to do with the unions?  If so they seriously need to wake up - the lib dems might not be great on trade unions or privatisation but they're a damn sight better than a tory government would be, which is what everyone seems to think we're heading for under the current system.

i don't suppose the reluctance to even talk about PR just now can be for fear of doing something blatantly political - we seem to have lost all our shame on that front years ago, and anyway as the outcome would be a fairer one, i think people would get over it pretty quickly. 

can anyone illuminate me?  or do you agree? 


Re: Labour defeat in Henley (#9)

by jaymason on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 06:42:42 PM GMT

None of thebig 3 want PR or we will get a warts and all version of democracy,do you want to be responsible for the first BNP MP's because with PR that's what you'll get and most of the folk who will be voting for them will be ex labour voters esp after this weeks lesson in positive discrimination against anything white and male


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour defeat in Henley (#11)

by doktorbuk on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 07:24:50 PM GMT

There is a confused message, though. "Listening to the electorate" when you're soundly defeated in a by-election is fair enough (if it actually happens). Not standing in a by-election at all is another matter completely, but wishing to hear the views of the electors it ain't.

And as for PR, well tangent ahoy, but if you do value to the voices of the voters you are "listening to", don't shut your ears when enough of them want to vote BNP.


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour defeat in Henley (#8)

by wgm on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 06:32:23 PM GMT

Moving to the left will win back a few, but lose even more in the centre. The vast majority of the British electorate identify themselves as being in the political centre, and it has been by winnig their votes that Labour has secured - for the first and only time - three consecutives terms in office.

Appealing only to their Party activists and the "core vote" is what helped keep the Tories in opposition for a decade.


Re: Labour defeat in Henley (#10)

by CitizenAndreas on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 06:53:28 PM GMT

I think that's a primitive way at looking at it. We've not moved to the left at all since Gordon Brown came to power yet we've become less popular.

The left/right positioning doesn't matter as much as the message we send out.


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour defeat in Henley (#13)

by NorthernMonkey on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 07:43:11 PM GMT

On what possible evidence are you basing this on?

Labour lost votes in Henley to the Tories, LibDems (under taxcutter Nick Clegg) and the BNP - all in many ways are further to the right than we are.


Re: Labour defeat in Henley (#14)

by jljb2 on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 08:20:45 PM GMT

Well, I don't really care about losing votes off peoplpe like you: I don't personally think taking drugs is a particularly 'progressive' thing to do, more destructive and saddening; if you really think not being allowed to smoke a mind-altering drug is a deprivation of freedom, perhaps you've had a little too much of it already... But I do care strongly about losing our core vote on which our party was built. No-one is asking for anything remarkable, just good solid practical socialist policies to make life affordable for all. Let's stop the silly faux-egalitarianism from Harman and co and get back to the nitty-gritty of making sure every one of our policies makes this country more socio-economically equal and that everyone has things which only some had before. That's what we're here for, it's not frightening or revolutionary, and it's perfectly achievable.


Re: Labour defeat in Henley (#15)

by NB on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 09:08:55 PM GMT

"I don't really care about losing votes off peoplpe like you" will be the epitaph of Labour if this attitude continues.


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour defeat in Henley (#19)

by jljb2 on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 02:43:03 AM GMT

I think I explained myself poorly: I desperately want us to change towards a more leftwards track, I simply don't think that that direction requires the self-indulgent Independent-reading silly-liberalism the previous commentator was advocating, which invariably does nothing to enhance freedom anyway. The mistake of the 80s was surely that we were too middle-class: too concerned with fringe issues like unilateral disarmament that had nothing to do with the bread and butter of everyday life. We were also too keen to jump on every bandwagon, from animal welfare to pro-abortion, when what really matters is quality of life, inequality, and community, education, health and crime. I'm just saying let's not be silly liberals, let's be cool-headed, pragmatic socialists of a more 1945 ilk.


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour defeat in Henley (#16)

by AngryVoter on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 09:48:45 PM GMT

Obviously I'm going to disagree slightly. Every vote counts and in order to gain those votes you have to have the right policies, and the ability to execute those policies decisively and "for the better".

 However, those policies also have to reflect the public mood, the MP's and the government are elected by the people on the basis of their manifesto and on the understanding they will reflect their best interests and concerns. However, the problem at present is the bubble effect, which happens to all governments eventually.

The people talk about the need for equality. That's fine. I agree with that and my attitude to people who usually continuously point out they are female or of an ethnic minority is "So what?"

Socialism though, I'm not so sure of. Socialism is a fairly thoroughly debunked theory with most of the remaining "socialist" countries rapidly adopting capitalist aspects socially and economically. [Russia, China, Cuba etc etc]

I know some people will obviously disagree with me, but this is after all my opinion and regard to how I see the world, the Cold War is over and socialism as we knew it world-wide is collapsing.

Social mobility however is a very different matter and, while not a preserve of the centre-left, it is certainly on the "left hand side" of the centrist ideal.

Let me think of an example, the Swedish Schools. As we all know Sweden is the most socialistic state of the Western World, the state intervenes on a regular basis into matters, but is also prepared to make large allowances to ensure social mobility and control is given to wider bodies of society.

The schools for example are a perfect example of a socialistically minded policy being put to work, rather than continue with tax, spend and centralized control as Labour now seems to be stuck in [With a nasty downward spiral to boot] it gave near total control to the parents to control, set up and run their own schools with their own admissions policy.

Compare this now to the attempt by the government in the last 10 years to fiddle with the education system on a large scale, often increasing the power of centralized bodies with little ability to understand what happens locally.

To me social mobility is knowing things "on the ground" and I am sorry guys, but that isn't going to happen with centralized state-based bodies like the Education Authorities. It has to be in the hands of the headmasters and the parents, rather than the overt and agressive N.U.T, or the LEA's.

Give people the power to do it, and watch as people do it out of a need for community and the want to give their children the best education possible.

If the Tories had not cottoned on to applying a form of Thatcherism to society you may have been able to use this to keep Labour in Power for another 3 terms.

 The problem is of course that Blair promised everything and ultimately delivered very little, instead we had the same tax and spend of Labour, which was all well and good when the economy was booming, but with over 3,000 companies in this quarter alone "going to the wall" Labour is once again in full panic mode like it was during the Callahagn years.

I know, again, people will point out Labour acheivements, but what will people really remember this government for? Really think about that one, because so far most people are saying "Ten Pence".

Perhaps my most devastating critique to date:

One a single, solitary issue, Labour signed away it's right to being the party of the poor. With that issue the party really has to wonder what it's purpose is in the public's view. Not their own view, or the view of the activists, "bubblists" and Party members. What does Labour stand for to the public eye?

Originally the idea was to be able to tax the richer, who could afford the small increase, to distribute, or even remove taxation from the lowest paid. This would allow them to use more of their money to propel themselves up the ladder in a form of Thatcherian social mobility, the basic premise is genius in it's simplicity and ease of execution, there aren't that many rich after all.

Instead it saw over 3,000 laws passed massively increasing the power and control of the state. Taxes rise for everybody while the "super-rich" remained largely untouched. Most of the Middle classes and the large body of the "lower-middle-class" [Which is basically slightly-better-paid Working Class people] saw their taxes go up and are now finding themselves pressed to the limit.

A lot of comparisons are being drawn with 1979. Having never lived during that time I can only speculate, but it seems to have been on people's lips long before the Beeb picked up on it.


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour defeat in Henley (#17)

by Floating voter on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 12:50:42 AM GMT

"A lot of comparisons are being drawn with 1979. Having never lived during that time I can only speculate, but it seems to have been on people's lips long before the Beeb picked up on it."

I was in my late teens in 79 and I do remember it. Up until then the thought of "Margaret Thatcher - milk snatcher" being in charge terrified me. I watched Callaghan's labour govt make one futile gesture after another. I used to shout at the TV and radio - "No, no no!! We'll get the tories" and I was right - we did get them. Labour completely self-destructed and reached the point of no longer being fit to govern.

The irony was that, at that point in time, it turned out that we needed the tories. Things were so messed up that it took a radically new approach to clean out all the legislative deadwood that was cloggiing up the system. Inefficiency was tolerated, the treasury was empty, inflation which peaked at 26% under Thatcher was already on its way up - it simply took another 2 years to slow down and reverse its trend.

Callaghan could have called an early election which he could have won but he bottled it and then had 2 troubled years. Brown could have called an early election which he would have won but he bottled it and now faces 2 troubled years. Both Brown and Callaghan took over from their predecessors half way through a parliament.

There used to be a pop song "You can't touch me I'm part of the union".  In the mid 80s I recall a union rep trying to get me to join when I started a job. I was told that if I did not join then if I was inefficient or no good at my job then I would be fired, but if I was part of the union then I would be unsackable.

Now rumours abound that the unions want more power again in return for keeping Gordon solvent. In the late 70s the DUP propped up the govt - just like now. As we approached the autumn and winter of 79 strikes and threats of strikes became common - just like now. Petrol, bread, wage demands in 79 were all going up - just like now. In the 70s we - the UK - actually ran out of money and needed a loan from the IMF, at least we have avoided that this time round.

One other comparison, in the 70s Thatcher was derided for being a lightweight, for never having held a substantial office of state before unexpectantly becoming leader of the opposition. The same charges have been levelled at Cameron.

The number of parallels with 79 is striking. I suspect that the result will be the same.


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour defeat in Henley (#34)

by AngryVoter on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 08:17:45 PM GMT

Thank you for the interesting and more clear comparisons between 1979 and 2008.


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour defeat in Henley (#18)

by jljb2 on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 02:36:47 AM GMT

On an aside, AngryVoter, I think handing control of education to parents is the worst possible thing you could do! Anyone who works in the education system will tell you that the major problem with discipline is that parents have no more respect for teachers than pupils, are unwilling to back teachers attempts at discipline up and are incapable of viewing their child as in the wrong. Sadly, when it comes to parenting, most people are lusicrously individualistic and absolutely incapable of doing what is best for the good of all: 'parents in control' would soon become 'mouthy articulate parents in control', and others would suffer. I'm not saying the state knows best; clearly there's a lot of scope for involving the community in schools more - but let's not put parents in charge!


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour defeat in Henley (#35)

by AngryVoter on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 08:24:26 PM GMT

 

Obviously you disagree, I accept that, but don't you think the total lack of responsibility at present from the parents adds to the problem?

Think about it, a lot of things Labour has done in the last decade has seen a new legion of people appear who tell us all what to do. "Civil Enforcement Officers" the various additional powers to bodies like the HSA. The Quangoization of government, all thousands of different bodies.

 

 


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour defeat in Henley (#36)

by jljb2 on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 10:08:10 PM GMT

Absolutely agree with you there - New Labour pledged to get rid of the quangos but has just multiplied them. I'm not saying more bodies are needed: fewer bodies surveying teachers might, for instance, add to their professionalism, leading parents to treat them with the respect they deserved. Imagine if patients disputed doctors' diagnoses the same way parents dispute the efforts of teachers to impose order! Yet teachers are highly skilled and trained individuals (in the main) who need parents to support them and to recognise that their child is part of a group which cannot function effectively unless they toe the line. Each parent sticking up for their own child, regardless of the consequences for others, is a recipe for disaster in education. So let's give teachers more professional independence and more disciplinary powers and make sure parents understand that they're part of a collective.

The liberal-left distaste for discipline is something I've never understood: an orderly classroom enhances every child's capacity to learn, and hence their ability to fulfil their potential (positive freedom). Lax discipline only means both weak and strong suffer in the long run, diminishing their freedom.

The point is not that parents should be told what to do; as a society, our moral code should be strong enough that parents know what to do - that teachers deserve respect and support and that the other children in the class have as much right to an education as their child. Unfortunately, Thatcherite individualism undermined those premises, and has been continued by New Labour - a decent education requires a collectivist mindset.


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour defeat in Henley (#39)

by alexswanson on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 06:30:24 AM GMT

Thatcherite individualism undermined those premises

 

Oh, come on. Are you seriously suggesting Thatcher was against proper school discipline?

 

One of the major problems with discipline in schools is the "rights" culture where a minority think they can misbehave and the authorities will do nothing - and a lot of the time they're correct. This culture doesn't come from the political Right but from the Left. The problem is made worse by the crazy insistence of the people who run our educational system on "mixed-ability" classes, which manages to produce teaching that is at the wrong level for most of the pupils, and hence contributes to boredom and frustration.


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour defeat in Henley (#40)

by jljb2 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 01:09:40 PM GMT

Of course Thatcher didn't set out to undermine discpline, but that is without doubt the consequence of increased individualism (and the culture of individual rights she fostered). Thatcherism = people think they owe nothing to others, we're all just families against each other, with no need to have any regard for the welfare of others. That is the root of the 'rights' culture; Labour values indicate that individualis should always treat others as they'd wish to be treated, that we all have a responsibility for each others' wellbeing, and that we must treat others with decency and respect. The breakdown of communities caused by Thatcher is probably another contributor to the decline in discipline: there are no longer reliable jobs for kids to go into after school, and the system doesn't yet cater adequately for the non-academic (though I appreciate that that's an inevitable part of globalisation). Mixed-ability teaching is neither inherently left or right wing, it's an empirical question - if all kids benefit, we should support it, if not then we shouldn't; I know of some evidence for the former, but I'm no expert - do a literature review if you're interested...And incidentally, in the vast majority of schools, teaching is setted in the core subjects.


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour defeat in Henley (#49)

by AngryVoter on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 04:19:53 PM GMT

"What about stuff that's happened?"

"Oh It must be Mrs Thatcher's fault. All of it. Everything. Even stuff we've legislated for and not actually combatted, all Mrs T's fault."

Come on jljb2, Labour has had a full decade in power now. Continuing to blame Thatcher time and time again just snaps ridiculously of blind obedience to the party line.

No political party is perfect, but trying to foist off everything and every problem that's happened in the last 10 years on a different political ideaology that is no longer completely relevant is just silly and always seems to me to smack of utter desperation when it comes from Labour High ups.

 

Or is that all Labour does now? Blame everybody but itself?


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour defeat in Henley (#52)

by jljb2 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 05:03:58 PM GMT

You seem incapable of making the distinction between Labour and New Labour. I said in my first post that New Labour had perpetuated Thatcher's individualism; in the post above I argued that Labour values were the solution - not New Labour ones, which are essentially Tory values. I certainly blame New Labour for many of our problems, but I don't blame the Labour values i was brought up to believe in. However, Thatcher changed this country hugely, and her legacy is utterly key to most of the problems we face - it's certainly her fault, but yes, Labour has had time enough to remedy the problems. Trying to make a country better after an 18-year period in which child poverty tripled, communities were destroyed and the entire mindset of society changed is inherently difficult, but yes, we should have done far more.


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour defeat in Henley (#62)

by AngryVoter on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 09:08:04 AM GMT

Aside from not nationalizing everything there is very little different between Labour and New Labour.

Certainly not now they're in government. It's largely been reduced to it's usual tax and spend addiction rather than truly providing something new.

Personally I blame it on Blair and Brown. They tried to sell a "new" Labour in which people assumed it would be caring Thatcherism. Unfortunately with nothing actually radical beneath the NL veneer it resorted to a "normal" Labour government. Which was tax and spend.

Sure it's added a few rights here and there. But it's also taken away a number of rights also, it's latest Equality Bill is a joke and everybody is ruddy furious over the 10p tax issue, meaning Labour just wants the money to spend, rather than spend it on the poorest.


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour defeat in Henley (#63)

by jljb2 on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 11:19:54 AM GMT

"Aside from not nationalizing everything there is very little different between Labour and New Labour."
Come on, you know that's nonsense. You only have to look at the huge number of ideas coming out of the Labour left (far more than the Tories have thus far come up with) to see that a real Labour government would be utterly different in almost every respect to those we've had since '97. Your point about New Labour and the 10p issue is a case in point: Labour values dictate a wholehearted commitment to reducing inequality - but New Labour has failed utterly in that regard. Above all, it's a matter of morality and tone of government: real Labour politics would be couched in an unambiguously moral language of fighting injustice, and aimed at ensuring that every policy helped the poor and the disadvantaged; New Labour tries to justify every policy by showing how it would benefit the City and middle England. The difference could not be more stark.


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour defeat in Henley (#32)

by jkitleft on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 07:56:45 PM GMT

You seem to make a mistake in assuming that there is one kind of socialism. There are many kinds, and many believers and adherents, ranging from Rosa Luxembourg to G.K Chesterton to Polly Toynbee to George Orwell.


So I agree power should be decentralised across the public services, and as a commited supporter of the co-operative movement, this is a core belief of mine. But many assume this to mean, that there should be intense marketisation of the public services. How often does this fail? The most marketised part of the NHS is the cleaning industry. It is also the worst peforming part of our healthcare system. Handing hospitals over to private companies, was shown to be unprudent with Birmingham Good Hope. Some spun foundation hospitals as such a Fabia co-operative policy: it actually was an idea to force competition between hospitals, and would've led to middle-class areas creaming off more funding.


Every conservative mentions the Swedish schools, to juxtapose it with their social democratic society. I once read this in a Toynbee article:

Education is where Cameron draws most from Sweden. When last Swedish conservatives were in office, in the early 1990s, they allowed anyone to set up a "free" school, however small, and claim the state's per capita allowance for pupils: voluntary and private for-profit schools opened, as well as Muslim and Christian schools. Cameron now plans to do the same. The biggest for-profit company - Kunskapsskolan - is about to open academies in Britain next year, justified to their shareholders as experimental loss-leaders. But if Cameron wins, the company will be in prime position to open as many "free" state schools as there are parents wanting to use them.

Interestingly, however, this is not a programme the present Swedish conservative government is expanding; only about 10% of Swedish children attend "free" schools, and Reinfeldt's ministers say their energy is directed to improving ordinary state schools. "Free" schools have proved socially divisive, attracting more middle-class families and ethnic minorities, many have restrictive academic admissions criteria, and there is intense unease over new segregated faith schools.

Here is an example of how "choice" can also restrict choice: a former social democrat minister tells me he is sad he feels he no longer has the choice to send his child to the once socially mixed neighbourhood school that he attended. Instead she travels miles away to a "free" school, where the brightest children have congregated, making his old school much worse. It's an irony that the Swedish conservatives no longer promote the "free" schools that Cameron will make his centrepiece policy: expect similarly divisive effects.


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour defeat in Henley (#25)

by otware on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 05:00:29 PM GMT

I agree entirely. Reclassifying cannabis against the wishes of the scientists and advisors was a populist stunt to try and win back the right wing tabloids. It didn't work though. People who think that locking up drug users is a good idea are just sticking their heads in the sand, it's ridiculous.

Almost everyone must know at least 1 person who smokes weed, and everyone in the country must know somebody who has smoked weed at some time or another. It's all very well jumping on some right-wing Daily Mail bandwagon, but how would these people feel if it is there friends or family banged up for possesion. It's a waste of police time and police money (ahem - tax payers money!). Instead of hounding recreational users of soft drugs they should clamp down on dealers of hard drugs. But cathing a few dealers doesn't sound as good as stamping on 3 million 'criminals' when it's on the front page of the Mail, does it?


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour defeat in Henley (#29)

by jljb2 on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 07:46:42 PM GMT

How on earth is it right wing to be against drug use? Using drugs is self-indulgent and immoral: it's a waste of a precious life that we should be grateful for. And it's all very well for the middle-class dinner party coke-snorting set: they don't suffer the consequences - but those who turn to drugs in desperation and those in developing countries do suffer immensely - I have absolutely no sympathy with middle-class drug users who destroy their minds and bodies while others suffer the criminal effects of their fuelling the drug trade. I don't give a toss what the Daily Mail thinks - people's lives are ruined by drugs, and surely noone would deny that in so many cases cannabis use leads to stronger drugs?


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour defeat in Henley (#33)

by jkitleft on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 08:07:59 PM GMT

No, drugs prohibition is destroying the lives of poor people.

I have a thought experiment: Is it probable that a poor drug dealer will be addicted to drugs? Now is it probable that a CEO of Drugs Inc. would be a heroin addict? This isn't snobbery. I know drug users. Some are middle-class, some are working-class.


I'm not encouraging drug use. That's the point. If you regulate it, you can control it. The University of Cologne recently found that you can rid the psychosis-inducing effect of marijuana with the ingredient CBD. The crack cocaine market would collapse. As for heroin, if you put the NHS in charge of heroin supplies, heroin addicts won't cause others harm. They will not rob people. Inner cities will no longer see the younger 7-year old brother of a gang member having to walk across enemy teritory with a bag of coke.


People suffer immensely with the current prohibition. Afghanistan would be transformed if prohbition was ditched. Think of what having control of 70% of their GDP would allow. Columbia will no longer see social democrats mistaken for FARC thugs, and dragged out into the street and shot by right-wing paramilitaries.


I don't say this as a metropolitan liberal. I say this as someone who wouldn't use drugs themselves. But it would be effective to dramatically increasing police funding, and 3% of our GDP could be contributed to our healthcare system and education system.


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour defeat in Henley (#37)

by otware on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 03:36:52 AM GMT

It's not a matter of being for or against drug use. That's a totally retarded conclusion to draw. It's closed minded and ingorant. Like jkitleft said, if you control the supply of drugs then you can better control who uses the (ie not many people).

The first thing you have to realise however is that no matter how hard you push prohibition you can never stop people from taking drugs. Whether they're attracted by the risk or they want to try a new experience, prohibition will not stop them. All it does is force drugs underground, which means you have no control of what's in them or who's creaming off fat profits from them.

Take cannabis for example. A fairly recent issue has been 'bricked' or 'grit' weed which is cannabis that has been bulked out with stuff to boost profits for dealers. This is done not by small dealers but by big important ones, very close to the top of the supply chain. The additives they use are often tiny beads of glass, which is bad for your lungs and can lead to silicosis. The authorities have no way of preventing this.

Don't forget that in the Netherlands there are fewer cannabis users as a percentage of the population than in Britain, despite their liberal policy. Just remember the track record of prohibition - do you know who Al Capone was? He was a gangster who made his fortune out of the prohibition of alcohol. Don't think for a moment that prohibition of other drugs is any different in that sense. 


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour defeat in Henley (#50)

by jkitleft on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 04:20:39 PM GMT

I hate to say that the best ever writer on drugs was Milton Friedman. Some conservatives are the best writers on certain subjects: Ann Leslie is one of the best writers on capital punishment, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a classical liberal who is my favourite feminist.

Anyway, Friedman said that when we think of the Bloods and Crips in LA, we should think of Al Capone. Rhys Jones wasn't murdered by a masochistic gang. He was murdered because of the herion wars in Toxteth.


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour defeat in Henley (#26)

by NorthernMonkey on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 06:56:12 PM GMT

If we abandon social liberalism then expect us to be overtaken by the LibDems nationally.

Your combination of far-left economics and social authoritarianism is not a pleasant one.


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour defeat in Henley (#30)

by jljb2 on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 07:48:49 PM GMT

I don't think I have far-left economics or social authoritarianism: I am, for instance, a staunch advocate of globalisation, unlike many on the left. I simply believe that we MUST live by a strong moral code - religious or secular - which prohibits behaviours which damage others' lives. If that's authoritarian, so be it, but I was brought up to believe you treat others as you wish to be treated - that should be our moral code, and we should enforce it far more strongly.


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour defeat in Henley (#45)

by jljb2 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 02:25:34 PM GMT

"you can't legislate for private morality"

Rubbish. Thatcher, by promoting an individualistic economic model, effectively legislated for an individualistic private morality. Build a more equal society and you'll get a more collectivist mindset.


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour defeat in Henley (#31)

by jljb2 on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 07:55:24 PM GMT

I would hope that most social liberals would not vote solely on the issue of cannabis use - if they did, they would surely have to drop the word 'social' from their name; the idea that someone should vote along such individualist lines is abhorrent. I never said I supported 5 years in jail - I think that's unneccessary - but let's have them working in communities where the effects of drug-fuelled crime make people afraid to leave their homes, then see if their silly pastime seems so innocent. I would hope that with a good, socialist Labour party, all individuals on the left would appreciate that any issue like this would be traded against huge gains for the poor and ordinary people, and would therefore vote Labour. Are you seriously saying you would vote against a Labour Party pledged to seriously redistribute wealth simply because it was against cannabis use? That would be breathtakingly selfish.


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour defeat in Henley (#38)

by otware on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 03:43:25 AM GMT

I don't think you quite understand the mindset here. Cannabis users are normally young. If they are of voting age they have not necessarily matured politically so they don't see the big picture of the economy etc, and the historical stuff. They see a government that wants to bang them up for 5 years for doing something that they don't see as a crime, and trampling on civil liberties in general. It's quite believable that they may turn against Labour.

Out of interest - how does the current policy get justice for communities ruined by drugs gangs? It's because of the policy that the gangs exist in the first place!  


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour defeat in Henley (#44)

by jljb2 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 02:23:23 PM GMT

Well, as a 20 year old myself, I don't think age is an excuse for self-indulgence or selfishness. I daresay I'm wrong on the drugs issue - don't really know what I'm talking about to be honest, and tend to think about these things emotionally rather than rationally, but I will never understand someone not voting Labour because of something like this.


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour defeat in Henley (#46)

by jljb2 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 02:28:28 PM GMT

My objection is not the drugs issue itself, its the idea that anyone would vote solely on issues affecting themselves - particularly the middle-class young people you're targetting. If Labour was offering a programme of radical redistribution, but continued prohibition of cannabis, a vote against Labour would be utter selfishness which would damage millions of lives, simply to allowed your continued pleasures from a mid-altering substance which offers no benefits whatsoever to society. Shame on you for promoting such individualism; I can't believe you were ever a Labour supporter if you have such little regard for the welfare of others.


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour defeat in Henley (#48)

by CitizenAndreas on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 04:16:57 PM GMT

You can't just fix poverty by taking so much money away for those who have it that they're no longer rich and giving the poor so much money that they're equal with those who were once rich.  That wouldn't work, you'd just ruin the country if you tried that.

Radical redistribution is not the same as the kind of egalitarian straw man argument you're putting forward here. Taxation is already progressive, would you say that progressive taxation is wrong?

Tackling poverty is all about putting weath in the hands of the "have nots", any attempt to tackle it will involve it coming from the "haves".  Although if you'd care to name a better solution I'd be happy to hear it.

PS: I think your stance on cannabis is entirely correct, the evidence in favour of relassification was flimsy and a political gesture it (in my opinion) lost more votes than it won.


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour defeat in Henley (#61)

by CitizenAndreas on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:52:15 PM GMT

I'm sorry, but saying "You can't just hand out money" is usually code for blaming the poor for the situation, any government wanting to address poverty has to reach into it's pockets, end of story.

Education may help future generations but what about current generations, do you believe they should be abandoned? I don't.

Giving people the chance to realise opportunities is essential, but that does require a government to commit serious resources and can't be done on the cheap.

The final point I'd make is that the structure of the economy as it stands is inherently unfair and provides far more opportunities for the wealthy to expand their wealth while limiting the opporunities available to the working and middle classes. Hence the continuing growth in inequality. 


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour defeat in Henley (#51)

by jkitleft on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 04:27:52 PM GMT

I agree we must maintain an objective analysis. I know many gay people who would never have voted for Thatcher before she introduced Section 28, or after she voted to decriminalise homosexuality.

I don't support legalisation for individualist reasons. I support it because I believe that we shouldn't be locking up 10,000 people for selling or taking soft drugs. Money would be better spent on rehabilitation. I support it because I think it could aleviate poverty.


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour defeat in Henley (#57)

by jljb2 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 05:35:09 PM GMT

Except that for the people you're talking about, cannabis use is a lifestyle choice (and a destructive one at that) whilst being gay is not, and harms no-one. There's no similarity there at all. You still haven't addressed the issue of the relative weight people should attach to their own cannabis consumption relative to Real Problems faced by people. I like cider, and if the govt decided to ban cider, I would be upset. But is it worth putting in jeopardy things like housing, education and poverty, just because I like cider? No - it's a lifestyle choice, not a vital issue of wellbeing.


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour defeat in Henley (#59)

by jljb2 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 07:12:30 PM GMT

Oh stop being hysterical. I'm certainly not arguing for intrusion into others' private lives, unless they damage the lives of others. My argument is not essentially about drugs or alcohol, it's about how you should choose how you vote, and that is by a consideration of who will suffer most as a consequence of it. I find your preference for your individual right to take drugs over the wellbeing of others very odd from someone who purports to believe in freedom. Freedom is surely about having the capacity to fulfil your potential and to actually achieve the individual rights which we all deserve. Lack of healthcare, housing, education, money etc can all inhibit that real freedom, yet you'd prefer to protect your individual freedom than expand those freedoms for others to achieve their potential. That's a little worrying. Of course, we don't have to choose between the two, and I'm not saying we need to, but the fact that you would choose yourself over the collective good is sad.


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour defeat in Henley (#53)

by jljb2 on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 05:05:45 PM GMT

Regardless of that, you don't answer the question of whether one's drug use is more important than the welfare of others on a key issue, such as the minimum wage, say?


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour defeat in Henley (#55)

by otware on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 05:14:53 PM GMT

I don't think it should be as important. But that doesn't mean people won't interpret it the other way. It would indeed be rather selfish to vote purely on the grounds of drugs use when there are other political issues that are more important and affect the entire country.

But this doesn't stop drugs policy being an important issue nonetheless. The way I see it, prohibition has always failed and will continue to fail because it can never achieve its aims. Accept defeat in the 'War on Drugs' (as Bush likes to call it), which is a war that can obviously never be won, then focus on a new battle front - one where progress can be made - in the form of rehabilitation and care for drugs users without shunning them as nasty criminals (which most of them aren't).


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour defeat in Henley (#60)

by jkitleft on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 07:44:50 PM GMT

Exactly. Libertarianism on social matters can be accepted, as long as certain activities are regulated.

This is why I am against the super-casnoes. How can you regulate them? But I think prostituion should be legalised, so that sex workers cannot be exploited, and they will be safer, as well as being able to divert resources into tackling sex trafficking.

On a matter like extreme porn, of course it shouldn't be advertised in corner shops. If they are hidden in cinemas for sex videos, with black windows, they are stigmatised, not legitamised, and recognised as seedy places. The same goes for the current debate about the lap dancing clubs. The relaxation of the licensing laws, should be tightened for this specific industry. I'm not saying we should ban them, but they shouldn't be allowed to explode to the point where they are no longer hidden. 


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour defeat in Henley (#20)

by treborc on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 09:30:13 AM GMT

If like some say Labour is now a center party very much like the Tories, then whats the difference, so we win three elections the Tories allowed this because of the mess Thatcher made. And Major with his silly ideals of returning to Victorian ethos. While his party shagged everything that moved. Blair came in took free holidays and again shagged the voters while he ran off to make millions. Brown now has a Party which is looking and asking whats the difference between Labour and the Tories, why vote Labour when we can have the real thing. I expected to be shafted by the Tories I did not expected it from Labour.


Re: Labour defeat in Henley (#21)

by Floating voter on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 11:35:45 AM GMT

"I expected to be shafted by the Tories I did not expected it from Labour."

So - are you saying the tories are more honest than labour because they behave as expected?

(Ducks and runs for cover....... )


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour defeat in Henley (#22)

by redwedge on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 12:15:06 PM GMT

Henley is a serious blow to Labour, we lost our deposit, came fifth behind the BNP and only 200 votes ahead of UKIP.  Only 1,066 people came out to vote from us. 

What I find disconcerting about this though is the attempt at "spin" coming out from no 10.  The line being played is that this was Harman's mistake - low profile campaign, far too positive and alienating of voters through the new Equality Bill.  This is typical Brown - hide away and let somebody else take the flack. 

Henley is another wake up call for Labour, following the local elections, Ken's defeat in London and the loss of Crewe and Nantwich.  We have a weak leader who has a tarnished "brand", Labour looks intellectually exhausted (the great danger of Labour governments) - where is the big idea???  Where is the narrative???  What does Brown's Labour Party want to do for Britain - what is their vision??  As a voter I just don't see it, and as a party member I utterly distraught that we are sleep walking to a huge defeat in 2010, which will see us out of office for years!


Re: Labour defeat in Henley (#23)

by madasafish on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 03:53:39 PM GMT

Face it. Who believes anything a single Labour Minister says?

IF you believe GB and Co.. we're immune to boom and bust, taken more people out of poverty than ever, are richer, better off, have less crime  and are  more equal. And we're going to have minimal immigration from eastern Europe and a Referendum on Lisbon. And we are fighting two wars to save the world and we respect our Armed Forces and they are better paid and equipped than ever. And everyone will have a NHS dentist.. etc. So we should all be deliriously happy.

Does anyone seriously believe any of it?

The rest of the UK - apart from those who still vote Labour - do not ...

Forget agendas, policy, going left , right or sideways,  Government has little credibilty left..

And of course the Conservatives are still sleazy, have little policies etc.  But - and this is key - they are NOT Labour.

The party needs 15 years in Opposition to reinvent itself and to change its leaders into people whom the voters can understand and empathise with.


Re: Labour defeat in Henley (#41)

by CitizenAndreas on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 01:47:15 PM GMT

Whatever our ministers say, I still think there's a hell of a lot more truth in what they're saying compared to some of the complete cack that the Tories on her are coming out with.


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour defeat in Henley (#64)

by NB on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 11:28:50 AM GMT

Your loyalty is deeply touching.  So you agree with Alan Johnson that Gordon has had a "good year"??


[ Parent ]

Re: Labour defeat in Henley (#27)

by ChrisPaul on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 07:10:03 PM GMT

Agree with the first comment. This result shows labour core voters staying at home as they very often do in local government elections and in by-elections. My reluctant analysis <a href="http://chrispaul-labouroflove.blogspot.com/2008/06/hot-news-explain-evaporation-of-labour .html">is here</a>  and links to news that Winchester 97 was twice as bad shortly after a landslide <a href="http://chrispaul-labouroflove.blogspot.com/2008/06/sadies-tavern-henley-was-triumph-plus. html">are here</a>
 
The game might be up for "New Labour" which is of course a non existent organisation serving as a brand slogan or meta-for a real, 100 year old collective. But there is no way that the HoT By-election has any great meaning, any more than the HaH By-election is a plebiscite on 42 days.


Re: Labour defeat in Henley (#28)

by ChrisPaul on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 07:16:47 PM GMT

Agree with the first comment. This result shows labour core voters staying at home as they very often do in local government elections and in by-elections. My reluctant analysis is here and links to news that Winchester 97 was twice as bad shortly after a landslide are here.
 
The game might be up for "New Labour" which is of course a non existent organisation serving as a brand slogan or meta-for a real, 100 year old collective. But there is no way that the HoT By-election has any great meaning, any more than the HaH By-election is a plebiscite on 42 days.


Labour defeat in Henley | 55 comments (55 topical)