HEALTH WARNING
THIS ENTRY CONTAINS POLITICAL COMMENT. THOSE OF A WEAK DISPOSITION OR A DISLIKE OF POLITICS SHOULD LOOK AWAY NOW.
Last year I wrote two essays on the 'politics of catch-up' and the influence of neo-liberalism (Thatcherism. I'll ease off on the jargon now.)
Basically, it became clear in the early-mid 90s that neo-liberalism had triumphed. The Conservatives under Thatcher seemed to have established a hegemony, and Socialism was dead. Actually, Socialism had been dead for decades: just ask Michael Foot. Anyway, a sea change had taken change in UK politics, and the Labour party found that their comfy support blanket of working class values was evaporating in a cloud of cigar smoke.
To their credit, the party noticed this, and began a process of change within the party; started by Kinnock and Smith, and completed in a blaze of fatuous, red-tinged spin by one Tony Blair. The 'New Labour' moniker was a smokescreen, attempting to take some of the focus off their increasingly un-Labourish policies. The party had taken a definitive leap towards the middle ground of UK politics, which, thanks to Thatcher, was now much further to the right of the spectrum than before. In essence, the only way the party could become electable again was to adopt some Tory-ish policies: hence the "politics of catch-up."
And now it's 2006, and we find ourselves in a similar position once again. Labour is the hegemonic power, and the fresh faced new Tory leader, David Cameron, is trying to whip the middle ground carpet from under their feet by adopting some of their policies. Cameron is preaching endlessly of 'compassionate conservatism' and consensus politics: Thatcher must feel nauseous.
Several political commentators (and even Blair himself) have suggested that we have entered an era without ideology, where the battle is over "policies, not ideologies." It seems this prediction may be coming true, because the Cameron Conservatives are attempting to adopt a position somewhere to the left of Labour: leaving us with three slightly-to-the-left-of-the-middle-ground main parties.
This makes me worry. A lot. Because who will all the traditional Tory voters, whose views are fundamentally right wing, vote for? If the trend continues, we are in serious danger of letting right wing extremist parties gain a foothold in parliament at the next election.
Meanwhile, the Tories have the perfect opportunity to pick up voters from the "artist formerly known as the Liberal Democrats." I used to be a fan of Charles Kennedy, but now the man admits to his drinking problem (which I have long suspected), and thinks he can legitimately continue as party leader? He rightly has no support from his shadow cabinet colleagues, and should step down immediately, before the party hurtles headlong into the laughing-stock abyss. My dad earlier told me that alcoholism was nothing new in UK politics, and cited Churchill as an example. My response was simple: Churchill was a demagogue, not a politician, and were it not for the war, he would be remembered as the country's worst ever PM. Certainly, if he were a candidate now, he would be laughed out of Whitehall.
Incidentally, I'm currently planning a big party, and inviting all my friends in readiness for the death of Ariel Sharon. The third most laughable world leader, after Mugabe and Bush, and just ahead of Museveni of Uganda.
I had to get that off my chest. Well done if you've read it all without falling asleep or having a coronary.
THIS ENTRY CONTAINS POLITICAL COMMENT. THOSE OF A WEAK DISPOSITION OR A DISLIKE OF POLITICS SHOULD LOOK AWAY NOW.
Last year I wrote two essays on the 'politics of catch-up' and the influence of neo-liberalism (Thatcherism. I'll ease off on the jargon now.)
Basically, it became clear in the early-mid 90s that neo-liberalism had triumphed. The Conservatives under Thatcher seemed to have established a hegemony, and Socialism was dead. Actually, Socialism had been dead for decades: just ask Michael Foot. Anyway, a sea change had taken change in UK politics, and the Labour party found that their comfy support blanket of working class values was evaporating in a cloud of cigar smoke.
To their credit, the party noticed this, and began a process of change within the party; started by Kinnock and Smith, and completed in a blaze of fatuous, red-tinged spin by one Tony Blair. The 'New Labour' moniker was a smokescreen, attempting to take some of the focus off their increasingly un-Labourish policies. The party had taken a definitive leap towards the middle ground of UK politics, which, thanks to Thatcher, was now much further to the right of the spectrum than before. In essence, the only way the party could become electable again was to adopt some Tory-ish policies: hence the "politics of catch-up."
And now it's 2006, and we find ourselves in a similar position once again. Labour is the hegemonic power, and the fresh faced new Tory leader, David Cameron, is trying to whip the middle ground carpet from under their feet by adopting some of their policies. Cameron is preaching endlessly of 'compassionate conservatism' and consensus politics: Thatcher must feel nauseous.
Several political commentators (and even Blair himself) have suggested that we have entered an era without ideology, where the battle is over "policies, not ideologies." It seems this prediction may be coming true, because the Cameron Conservatives are attempting to adopt a position somewhere to the left of Labour: leaving us with three slightly-to-the-left-of-the-middle-ground main parties.
This makes me worry. A lot. Because who will all the traditional Tory voters, whose views are fundamentally right wing, vote for? If the trend continues, we are in serious danger of letting right wing extremist parties gain a foothold in parliament at the next election.
Meanwhile, the Tories have the perfect opportunity to pick up voters from the "artist formerly known as the Liberal Democrats." I used to be a fan of Charles Kennedy, but now the man admits to his drinking problem (which I have long suspected), and thinks he can legitimately continue as party leader? He rightly has no support from his shadow cabinet colleagues, and should step down immediately, before the party hurtles headlong into the laughing-stock abyss. My dad earlier told me that alcoholism was nothing new in UK politics, and cited Churchill as an example. My response was simple: Churchill was a demagogue, not a politician, and were it not for the war, he would be remembered as the country's worst ever PM. Certainly, if he were a candidate now, he would be laughed out of Whitehall.
Incidentally, I'm currently planning a big party, and inviting all my friends in readiness for the death of Ariel Sharon. The third most laughable world leader, after Mugabe and Bush, and just ahead of Museveni of Uganda.
I had to get that off my chest. Well done if you've read it all without falling asleep or having a coronary.
VIEW 6 of 6 COMMENTS
If that doesn't scare you, nothing will