The essence of Conservatism is that people doing quite nicely out of the current system do not want anything to change, in case the consequences are not good for them. That is why John Stuart Mill said the Conservatives would be better named “The Stupid Party”. Conservatism does not require a thought process. Generally it does require a callousness towards those not doing well out of the current system.
Radicalism is more diffuse. Its essence can be a cold certainty of the rationalist ability to calculate risk and consequence. Or it can spring from romanticism, the gambler’s instinct, or plain having nothing to lose. (In my case, all of the above).
The First Past the Post electoral system is a historic relic not fitted to a modern society. But by definition elected politicians have done rather well out of it, so have no incentive to change. With the neo-conservative consensus embracing all the main Westminster parties, it doesn’t make any difference who governs us apart from the question of which particular snouts are in the trough, which is no help to the man in the street.
Then along we come in the SNP and challenge some of the pillars of neo-conservatism, like the possession of vast hordes of nuclear warheads, the utility of ever increasing wealth inequality, a pre-Keynesian, Thatcherite attitude to public finance, and trying to get our way in the world by bombing poorer peoples. The SNP has managed to gather enough support for a radical agenda to pass the FPTP tipping point and for the system to work massively in our favour in Scotland. Cue massed panic in the Westminster establishment, including the corporate media. For the first time in a generation, people have appeared on a main television channel arguing that possession of weapons of mass destruction by the UK is not a good thing.
Whole sections of the Establishment have therefore woken up, for all the wrong reasons, to the fact that FPTP is a bad system. Yet neither the Blue nor the Red Tories are likely to embrace proportional representation.
The Blue Tories will not embrace PR because they are the Stupid Party. There is a right wing majority in England. If you separate Scotland, then UKIP and the Conservatives have about 48% of the vote in England compared to about 42% for Labour plus the Greens. I have left the Lib Dems out, though post Clegg they might fairly be added to the conservative total. Because of this right wing majority outside Scotland, PR would keep the Tories in government almost all of the time, though generally in coalition.
By contrast the Red Tories would be stuffed by PR. There just is not enough support for them, even after five years of a very unpopular coalition government. The reason there is not enough support for them is that they do not offer any kind of real alternative in policy. More austerity, more nukes, just fronted by an even less appealing set of neo-con “personalities” than the Conservatives in Miliband, Balls, Cooper, Murphy and Alexander.
What the SNP have shown is that there is a real public hunger for a more radical politics. PR would be the death of the Labour Party because the large majority of its voters lend the party their support purely to keep the Tories out, not because they are enthused by the policies or the line-up. PR would give the chance for a genuinely radical alternative to grow. There are legions of Labour supporters who would love to vote Green but fear it would let the Tory in. Under PR, other left alternatives besides the Greens would soon blossom. The Red Tories don’t actually have a unique offering to the public. There is not really a market niche for another set of Tories. They are maintained entirely by the inertia of the FPTP system. And they know it.
Expect a lot of angst about FPTP following major SNP gains. But do not expect the Establishment to do anything about it – the status quo suits them fine.
Although I agree with you about FPTP and the UK establishment parties, I’m afraid the SNP have been used in this election by our manipulative and corrupt media to a) distract from UKIP, who they fear even more than the SNP and b) to keep the Tories in power by neutering Labour in Scotland. This may well have happened anyway, of course.
That said, I think it’s important we’re not drawn into the power games of our elites, and that we each vote for who we want to vote for, regardless of whether our vote is supposedly ‘wasted’ or ‘puts x, y or z’ in Downing Street. It’s the only way we’re ever going to get change for the benefit of people across the UK, even if it may take some time.
I once spoke at a debate with Prof Alan Sked, one of UKIP’s original founders. As were were put up in the same hotel, we chatted. UKIP could have been a radical force, that was his intention. But it was hijacked by a lot of racist nutters. So he resigned from the party he founded. I am afraid that the Establishment uses UKIP to focus discontent on immigrants and away from the wealthy, and that people fall for it. I disagree with them too on Europe, but that is something on which reasonable people can disagree. But I can’t forgive their pandering to racism.
I can’t possibly vote for any party that has been in office whilst the apparatus of the state has been used to facilitate sexual abuse and worse of children in institutional care, and to protect the abusers.
Appalling as this may seem, sexual abuse of children is a secondary matter here. The matter of overriding importance is abuse of power; the institutions of the state have been used to do this; therefore, state power can be used with no moral restrictions whatsoever.
Only one restriction remains – the power of the electorate.
“There are legions of Labour supporters who would love to vote Green but fear it would let the Tory in. Under PR, other left alternatives besides the Greens would soon blossom.”
As a former member of the Labour Party I am one of the disaffected and am most likely to vote Green. When I looked through its manifesto on issues other than environmental issues I wanted to see real commitment there. Unlike the SNP, which has made a commitment to removing Trident, I cannot see that in the Green policies, just wishy-washy vague statements about minimum spending on defence. If I wanted vague statements I could have joined the Liberal Party years ago.
http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/
The blossoming of other left alternatives is going to take time. Before it happens there may be further austerity, depression and war. It should not take such drastic events to waken up the populace. But I agree that for the first time in a long time the neocons are having the battlements of their ivory towers challenged.
@Tom
“keep the Tories in power by neutering Labour in Scotland”
Oh, not that nonsense again. Comprehensively debunked here.
@Craig
The Tories abandoned Scotland, now it seems Labour must follow. However Labour’s Scottish seats made it seem Scotland was still democratically part of the UK – that fig leaf might be blown away next week and surely there must be some consequences.
As you say, nothing will be done about FPTP, and perhaps the signals are pointing in the other direction. The removal of all or nearly all Unionist MPs from Scotland points towards dissolution of the Scottish Parliament and the restoration of FPTP for all Scottish elections.
Devolution was intended to interdict independence but it hasn’t worked – instead Holyrood has been a showcase for the SNP and radical alternatives, now spilling dangerously into English consciousness. One solution is to reverse devolution. Also a return to FPTP in council elections could allow Labour to regroup and re-establish its shadowy municipal network of corruption and cronyism.
http://media.skynews.com/media/images/generated/2015/5/4/389276/default/v1/poll-graphic-may-4-1-762×428.jpg
All their words, speeches, staged events, TV ‘debates’, battle buses etc etc and little has changed over six weeks.
http://news.sky.com/story/1477149/tories-edge-ahead-of-labour-in-latest-poll
Its the Board of Deputies across all parties, stupid ! Just you wait and see as soon as they set up FOI in the SNP.
Obama’s personal and family history might give some clues as to what kind of politicians end up at the top, and why there is little choice in the policies of those we can vote for.
“I don’t have pictures of her, but Obama’s grandmother was the first female vice-president of the Bank of Hawaii, which various CIA front-entities used for their escrow accounts. And what Obama’s grandmother, Madeleine Dunham, handled, was making the CIA payments to various rulers,—like Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines, Nguyen Van Thieu in South Vietnam, as well as Suharto in Indonesia. The bank also helped to money-launder funds to support espionage in Japan, to arm the Afghan mujahideen, and also to provide weapons to Taiwan.”
http://larouchepub.com/other/2015/4218_obama%27s_mommy.html
Well, if Sturgeon does get another referendum, everyone will be happy 🙂
Have you noticed how many on the English left (such as Harry Leslie Smith, Richard Dawkins, etc) are frantically tweeting stuff about the SNP not being radical/left-wing and having to resort to outright lies and denials of ScotGov policies to achieve this? They know full well that UK Labour would never bring in as many progressive policies (free university education, free prescriptions, etc) as the SNP.
John Goss,
If I lived in England, and was faced with the choice of voting for Labour, to try to keep the Tories out, or the Greens whose values are much closer to my own, I would not let the vagueness of the Greens’ manifesto put me off voting for them. While it is right and proper for any party which might form at least part of the government, or might be able to significantly influence the government, to provide specific policies, this might seem presumptuous in the case of of a party which has no realistic prospect of winning a significant number of seats. The justification for voting Green, apart from registering a protest against the main parties, would be that the more votes they get in this election, the more credible a contender they should be in the next one.
“Have you noticed how many on the English left (such as Harry Leslie Smith, Richard Dawkins, etc) are frantically tweeting stuff about the SNP not being radical/left-wing and having to resort to outright lies and denials of ScotGov policies to achieve this? They know full well that UK Labour would never bring in as many progressive policies (free university education, free prescriptions, etc) as the SNP.”
Free university education and free prescriptions are right wing policies. They benefit the richest in society not the poorest. Paying for the education and medicines of rich politicians and lawyers means there is less money in the pot for the poor in society.
Scotland now has fewer kids from working class parents at college or university than England does.
Les Cunningham, I take your point. Parties should however prepare for government. Left Unity which is a very young party, has a manifesto. It makes a clear statement “We would scrap Trident.” Left Unity makes several other statements, like cancelling the ‘special relationship’ with the United States, leaving the nuclear-armed military alliance known as NATO, oppose intervention in the affairs of other countries, and so on.
Whatever I vote Labour will be returned in the constituency in which I live. While Green will most likely be my vote it can only add one to Clare Thomas’ tally. I was not impressed at all by her flyer which read more like a local council campaign. What I am saying is if the Greens were more purposeful they would probably get more votes. Environmental issues are important to me but so are a lot of other issues. I know they have to please a full spectrum from right to left and I suspect that is why they are so wishy washy.
Fred
“Free university education and free prescriptions. They benefit the richest in society and not the poorest.”
Your paranoid hatred of the SNP has addled your senses. The poorest have worse health and can’t afford medicines. Free education was the road out of poverty for generations of Scots, including me.
Small observation. Present system suits because once they get their nose in the trough, they never really have to take it out again, no matter what the electorate decide.
The hard-right Dawkins is now on the left? Rather like a planetary magnetic field reversing?
@Craig “UKIP could have been a radical force, that was his [Prof Alan Sked’s] intention. But it was hijacked by a lot of racist nutters. So he resigned from the party he founded.”
That is an eye-opener, and a good reason not to vote UKIP. A wiki article goes into further details about racist connections:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Sked
There are reasons to be concerned about the SNP apart from their eventual aim of breaking up the country. We shouldn’t believe anyone who suggests that we can get something for nothing. Saying to debtors ‘Away with austerity, we’ll pay it off another day’ is not responsible government IMO.
The best outcome might be a repeat of 2010, and a ‘No’ to the referendum question to whether to pull out of Europe. For this to happen, candidate MPs may have to put national unity before party right across Scotland. Let’s wait and see what happens.
I’m sick of the head games the main parties play regarding tactical voting. If you Vote X then you Are Really Voting Y. Vote Z and you Actually Voting X, shame on you. Etc. It’s all bollocks. The Tories, Libs, and Lab, we know on this thread, are virtually the same on policy. There are differences, of course, and I’ll allow that I personally would, just about, rather Labour got in than the Tories – but I really don’t care enough to vote for them. And voting tactically to keep the Tories out just seems a silly game, and a little beneath your average voter. Vote for whom you like, I say. If that’s the ‘Hard Right Jew-Bash Nazi Party’, so be it; luckily the vast majority of people aren’t so stupid. But vote tactically? It just seems a waste of a vote, to me. Especially given the head-games of editors and politico’s alike.
I’d vote for the SNP regardless of independence. I would not vote for the Labour Party even if they came out tomorrow and said that independence is a great idea. Because the Labour Party are captive to the neocon agenda, whilst the SNP appear not to be. I say ‘appear’, and I do understand that the SNP should be treated with scepticism. But still, you can only vote on that policies put towards you. If everyone is lying and it’s all bullshit – quite possible – it’s also, I think, perfectly acceptable to not vote. But I think tactical voting is worse than not voting, for sure.
Also. Peadophiles. Haven’t heard much from the Labour Party about Lord Janner have we? Think a little more was required. And still is.
Rumours on Twitter that there won’t be any exit polls in Scotland. Vote rigging alert if true.
Craig Murray et al.
Before you all vote on Thursday. Watch royalbabylon.com all of it, then you might understand who, and what, you are voting for.
I wish you all the ability to comprehend. Especially those in England, who do not have the same alternatives, to the same old same old we have here in Scotland.
Clear thinking to you all.
All the very best.
Robert.
“Your paranoid hatred of the SNP has addled your senses. The poorest have worse health and can’t afford medicines. Free education was the road out of poverty for generations of Scots, including me.”
87% of medicines dispensed in England are free of charge. There may be a small number of people who are just above the level for income support who are hit hard but I think this could be addressed in other ways than poor people’s taxes paying for the medicines of rich bankers and traders in the city.
Same with education, there are grants and bursaries available for students from low income families as well as loans which only need to be repaid if your income rises above a certain level
In both England and Scotland there is only so much money available for health care and education. The more you give to those who could afford it themselves the less there is left for those who can’t. The only way the Scottish government can fund paying for the education of the rich is by cutting places and funding for the poor and the statistics bare this out.
http://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/apr/29/free-tuition-scotland-benefits-wealthiest-students-most-study
Fred
So poor people are better off if they have to pay tuition fees? And a link to Severin Carrell proves it?
Fred,
Complete nonsense! Let me illustrate how your point about free university education is entirely wrong by attempting to recall from memory a letter to Times Higher Education magazine:
“Whilst university education was an elite pursuit that benefitted five per cent of society, it was felt appropriate to fund it from the public purse. Now that it is significantly more meritocratic, with around half of young people going to university, it has now been decided that students should pay for it themselves”.
Incidentally, I commend to everyone here the Letters page of THE as a very interesting read, which I think reflects a broad anti-austerity consensus amongst academics.
Quote from The Guardian:
“Labour leader says election is choice between running the country for the rich and powerful or putting working people first.”
I chuckled. Indeed it is. And if you agree, don’t vote Labour.
Ed Milliband appears to be a perfectly decent policy adviser. Can’t see the PM thing though.
“Because of this right wing majority outside Scotland, PR would keep the Tories in government almost all of the time, though generally in coalition.”
I disagree. The system would break down if this were allowed to happen.
UK ‘democracy’ is a system designed by the ruling classes to fend off revolution by giving ordinary people the illusion that they are in charge – if you control the choices, it doesn’t matter who the people choose. FPTP makes it particularly easy to operate – you only need to control two choices. This is easily achieved through control of the media.
The party in power will always work to further the ambitions of their masters, and this is nearly always against the best interests of the majority, therefore the electorate will eventually demand a change of government. If the Conservatives (or any other party) are perpetually in power, the democracy illusion is broken. So if Scotland alters the political balancing act of UK politics, the media will re-adjust the political aspirations of the masses until the electoral see-saw kicks in again.
There must always seem to be a choice.
“So poor people are better off if they have to pay tuition fees? And a link to Severin Carrell proves it?”
They only have to repay student loans if their income rises over a certain level. Meanwhile the money saved can be spent on grants for students from low income families.
87% free?? Is there a link.
United Kingdom]
A very large number of people in the countries of the United Kingdom get prescriptions partly or totally paid for by the National Health Service.[2] In Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland prescriptions are free to all citizens. While in England prescribed medicines and medical supplies are free of charge to:
those under 16 years old;
those aged 16–18 in full-time education;
those aged 60 or over;
holders of a valid Medical Exemption Certificate for a number of chronic conditions such as diabetes, epilepsy, etc.;
holders of a Maternity Exemption Certificate;
holders of an HC2 certificate (awarded on the basis of low income);
those with a War Pension Exemption Certificate;
recipients of income related benefits including: Pension Credit, Income Based Job Seekers Allowance and Income Support.
For others each prescribed item, regardless of nature or quantity, costs £8.20. One exception to this is if two items are prescribed of the same drug in the same form at different strengths (e.g. Ramipril 2.5mg capsules and Ramipril 5mg capsules) which would only incur one charge if they are printed on the same prescription. A prescription pre-payment certificate (or PPC) can be bought for £104.00, and covers unlimited prescriptions for 12 months. Alternatively, 3-monthly PPCs may be bought for £29.10 (Prices as of 1 April 2013). PPCs are sold to the public by the NHS Business Services Authority.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prescription_costs
See the United States section. Coming to the UK soon. The majority of personal bankruptcies in the US arise from inability to pay for medical bills because of non medically insured, medical insurance exclusions, etc.
“87% free?? Is there a link.”
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmhealth/815/81507.htm
“They only have to repay student loans if their income rises over a certain level. Meanwhile the money saved can be spent on grants for students from low income families.”
That’s simply not true. They also have to repay loans for various ‘technical’ reasons, which may include failure to update address details, and failure to inform student loans company of changes of circumstance; in fact the student loans agreement is much like the immigration agreement I recently had to go through. It’s a tight legal document, no mistake.
However, I guess if you get a loan, pay attention to the sub-clauses. The other problem – not in any sub-clause – is that Governments can – and do – change the ‘certain level’ of income required, as well as the interest rate. I was informed that I had to earn over 22k before I had to repay my loan. That changed within 5 years of my graduating. I also had to repay interest when I was on the dole. Not kidding. And I am far from alone.
It’s a case of theory meet practice – and the person in debt has no power. Student loans are a typical neocon idea.
Fred : “Free university education and free prescriptions are right wing policies.”
So a free-to-all NHS is also a right wing policy?