The Student Room Group

The lesson for Labour: The UK doesn't want socialism

Scroll to see replies

Original post by ChaoticButterfly
"To chase the centre is to chase the ever-shifting territory of your opponent’s demarcation, and to recoil at the charge that you are “left” is like crumpling at the insult “mother****er”; it has no concrete meaning, and its abstract meaning is simply that a person disagrees."
I would argue the centre is not a position which is decided by your opponent is it a position decided by the electorate. The centre ground is constantly moving because the views of the electorate are constantly moving. By catching the mood of the largest ground of electorate at a given time you are occupying the centre. The electorate may well be ready for nationalisation of key services but if they are not ready for large spending then proposing such activities is not going to be popular. Those issues don't occur in a vacuum.
Say if Scotland has become independent, would Labour still have been affected?

Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Burridge
Collectively, the 'socialists' (Labour, Greens and SNP for the purposes of this thread) achieved almost 40% of the vote.


What percentage of them are actually socialists though, and what percentage were simply wooed by fluffy, feel good slogans and promises of free stuff? Many of the Labour and Green supporters I know personally, don't have the first clue what 'socialism' even means.
This struck me as a reasonable appraisal of the Labour party circa 2015:

"Whom does it stand for now? Not for the British working classes. They have rejected the party wholly in Scotland and in southern and middle England outside London. Not for the upwardly mobile who were comfortable with Blair.

It is left with three groups the more ghettoised, self-identifying ethnic minorities (chiefly Muslims), the unionised public sector and the north London moralisers who lack the numbers but still set the tone for television, human rights law, the “creative” industries and what gets taught in bog‑standard state schools and universities. It is not a potentially victorious coalition. "

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/11596173/The-triumph-of-quiet-conservatism.html
Posted from TSR Mobile

Where im from in North West there were loads of labour seats, unlike in the south.
You say that but London is also a strong labour stronghold. Idk what the rest of the south were thinking. I find from whatever angle I look at politics, I do not believe running a country should be like running a business. I do not believe policies should be determined by making as much money as you can in order to maximise your country's revenue. I think many people are missing the point: that we need a fair society with equal opportunities, rather than one which makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. Clement Attlee in the late 1940s had the right idea by nationalising industries and achieving "full employment" (less than 300,000). This was of course destroyed by the Tory party who just wanted to make more money. Also I think it is important to increase spending on alternative sources of energy, as how things stand at the moment, when crude oil and fossil fuels will be running out we're all going to be ****ed over by WW3 because of our precious oil. As a young person I care about my future and I care about the people who live in my country, however it seems David Cameron, with his proposed abolition of disability benefits and his proposed abolition of the human rights act does not.And to those of you who support the conservatives, hate all you want, but they're not going to do anything to help you unless you are in the wealthiest 1% of the UK who own 40% of our economy. To the ukippers: I respect you more than the Tories because of the change you are demanding, though I do not agree with your policies at all. Ik this might not be related to what has been said previously in this threat but I wanted to vent my opinion somewhere.


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Fizzel
I would argue the centre is not a position which is decided by your opponent is it a position decided by the electorate. The centre ground is constantly moving because the views of the electorate are constantly moving. By catching the mood of the largest ground of electorate at a given time you are occupying the centre. The electorate may well be ready for nationalisation of key services but if they are not ready for large spending then proposing such activities is not going to be popular. Those issues don't occur in a vacuum.


Hunting the centre comes with the risk of looking like you have no principles, like you are looking for power just because. At least to people I know, that's a big deal.
Reply 68
Original post by demx9
Every single election that was based around socialist ideals was crushed by the electorate.


This statement is false. Labour won the elections of 1929, 1945, 1950, 1964, 1966 and both 1974 elections on 'socialist ideals'. Well, you could argue that they weren't really socialist in any of them, but given that the premise of this thread is that Miliband-led Labour was socialist then it wouldn't really make sense.

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending