Bollitics: Local & Euro Elections 2009

[leviramsey]

its not like you saw them flying Spitfires in the war is it

Immigration should be based on what is best for our country.....it should be based on what they can offer our economy, skilled workers from anywhere should be welcomed, and piss taking benefit beggers turned away.

Here's the problem. What's good for our economy isn't necessarily good for us. You can have property owners making millions but thousands homeless, you can have energy companies making millions but hundreds of thousands out of work, you can have manufacturing company shareholdres making billions because they're using low paid labour. The economy doesn't always benefit us because we live in a system whereby the wealth our labour creates is taken by others who give us back a tiny amount of what we make in the form of a wage.

I'm not sure we could find a more succinct argument for placing the BNP on the left...

[leviramsey]

The above chart is from Political compass:

There's abundant evidence for the need of it. The old one-dimensional categories of 'right' and 'left', established for the seating arrangement of the French National Assembly of 1789, are overly simplistic for today's complex political landscape. For example, who are the 'conservatives' in today's Russia? Are they the unreconstructed Stalinists, or the reformers who have adopted the right-wing views of conservatives like Margaret Thatcher?

On the standard left-right scale, how do you distinguish leftists like Stalin and Gandhi? It's not sufficient to say that Stalin was simply more left than Gandhi. There are fundamental political differences between them that the old categories on their own can't explain. Similarly, we generally describe social reactionaries as 'right-wingers', yet that leaves left-wing reactionaries like Robert Mugabe and Pol Pot off the hook.

And from the article that that graphic is taken

Firstly, a few words about popular political terms.

Once you accept that left and right are merely measures of economic position, the "extreme right" refers to extremely liberal economics that may be practised by social authoritarians or social libertarians.

Similarly, the "extreme left" identifies a strong degree of state economic control, which may also be accompanied by liberal or authoritarian social policies.

It's muddled thinking to simply describe the likes of the British National Party as "extreme right". The truth is that on issues like health, transport, housing, protectionism and globalisation, their economics are left of Labour, let alone the Conservatives. It's in areas like police power, military power, school discipline, law and order, race and nationalism that the BNP's real extremism - as authoritarians - is clear.

This mirrors France's National Front. In running some local governments, they reinstated certain welfare measures which their Socialist predecessors had abandoned. Like similar authoritarian parties that have sprung up around Europe, they have come to be seen in some quarters as champions of the underdog, as long as the underdog isn't Black, Arab, gay or Jewish ! With mainstream Social Democratic parties adopting - reluctantly or enthusiastically - the new economic libertarian orthodoxy (neo-liberalism), much of their old economic baggage has been pinched by National Socialism. It's becoming the only sort of socialism on offer. Election debates between mainstream parties are increasingly about managerial competence rather than any clash of vision and economic direction.

In the United States, the voices of dissent over unfettered market forces (ie extreme right economics) are heard from social authoritarians like Pat Buchanan as well as social liberals like Ralph Nader.

As an example, take a look at the ground that the main English parties in the UK's 2003 local elections (May 1) occupied in reality. The difference between the BNP and the Greens in economics isn't great, but there's a huge gap on the social scale. Neither scale, however, reveals enormous distances between the Conservatives and New Labour.

[the graphic I reproduced above is included here]

In the chart below, we look at the three largest UK parties and the positions that they've occupied on The Political Compass in recent years. We see that New Labour, for example, is actually significantly to the right of the pre-Thatcher Conservative Party. The change under Gordon Brown's leadership is one of style rather than substance, with the Blairite agenda continuing in all but name. As the centre of political gravity moves generally rightwards, the Liberal Democrats, who have held the most consistent ground, now occupy similar economic turf to the other parties, while maintaining a markedly greater concern for civil liberties. Although David Cameron is popularly perceived as "less right wing" than other recent Tory leaders, his real difference is on the social rather than the economic scale.

In 2008, we're hearing more than ever from politicians that 'right' and 'left' are no longer meaningful terms. To the contrary, they're as meaningful as ever, providing that it's understood that they're simply defining economic positions. However, with all the main parties embracing to a greater or lesser extent the prevailing neoliberal economic orthodoxy, it's increasingly - and embarrassingly - difficult for them to define their economic differences. No wonder they're anxious to scrap this measure !

Voter turnout is highest when ideological differences are most significant. This helps explain why the voter turnout is lower in the US than in all other western democracies , most of which have a multiplicity of parties and proportional representation. In the UK, voter turnout may continue to fall to US levels. Lowering the voting age isn't likely to excite participation in elections when the choice is less and less to do with a clash of visions than mere managerial competence. And without those traditionally big choices, one might well wonder where this is going to ultimately leave democracy.

On the question of voting methods, I'm a fan of IRV. IMO, it preserves the direct connection of representatives to the represented while doing away with the worst bugs in FPTP.

[snowychap]

I don't really know what you're trying to prove, Daz.

But anyway; I've just said I think there's good reason to drop the whole left/right dichotomy all together, so I actually think we generally agree. Not that I would go out of my way to try and prove someone wrong if they said the BNP are right-wing. In the popular understanding of the word, they clearly are. What I did say is that if we were to use left/right terms, then the history of the dichotomy implies that authoritarianism is a trait of the right. To further eloborate on that, the very specific origin of the terms is the French dispute over equal political rights versus the King's and clergy's power over the masses. As I'm sure you know, by the way, I wouldn't want this to come across as a history lesson. I know my points could be disputed, with the case of stalinism as a classic example of face value-leftism gone perversly authoritarian and outright fascist. Hitler is another example of the problems of 'left' and 'right' - for all his statist economic policies few would argue he was left-wing. And all the more reason to stop using the 'left' and 'right' lables imo. They don't really tell us much after all, and perhaps they haven't since the 19th century, and if we could use more substancial terms and lables we'd come a lot further.

I wouldn't say WE/A-A comparative politics literature is 'unimaginative parcelling of political thought, though,' if that's what you were saying. Most of it is very solid work indeed. The problems of the left/right dichotomy have by many been discussed in detail, and the 'new right' is only placed on the far right because of the traditional popular understanding of racism/xenophobia and authoritarianism as right-wing phenomena. The welfare populism of the 'new right' parties is indeed a point used by many in their criticism of the left/right dichotomy.

Why are the BNP authoritarian? Well, I'll have to admit to not knowing the details of their manifesto but I'd hazard a guess that their views on crime and justice aren't exactly liberal? Though, neither are Labour's but as you're probably aware I don't exactly regard New Labour as particularily leftist either.

Fair enough, mate.

I'm sorry if I came across as being over-critical of what you (and Peter) were saying.

I think my slight temper stemmed from what appears as the rather lazy packaging that, firstly, the media do of political organisations which then filters through to public perception.

As indicated by some of the contents of the articles in Levi's posts, I think that there is a distinct danger of assuming that the general movement across europe to the right (i.e. more towards the centre right parties) is a progression that will inevitably lead to those parties painted as 'far right'.

None of this movement is either desirable (or logical) in my view (in fact I find this general drift to be rather concerning) but that is not what I am discussing. What I was trying to get to the bottom of was the slack way that different political parties (and political parties with very different policies) were being lumped together in discussion mainly by the use of labels which do not describe in sufficient detail the ins and outs of those parties and their agendas.

I think the political compass diagram and article that Levi has posted much more accurately reflects reality than the usual method of discussing where politial organisations stand. It is also one which gives a better chance of understanding why some organisations gain support and without that understanding we will have little hope of combatting their rise.

[Awol]

As ever, Snowy and Levi have better articulated what I was trying to say.

[peterms]

...Why are the BNP authoritarian? Well, I'll have to admit to not knowing the details of their manifesto but I'd hazard a guess that their views on crime and justice aren't exactly liberal? ...

Yes, they are in favour of both corporal and capital punishment. For capital punishment they say there should be incontrovertible proof of guilt, such as DNA evidence or "being caught red-handed", which will bring a laugh for anyone with the slightest knowledge of how many people have previously been convicted but were in fact innocent.

They are also in favour of casual assault by the police, and they actually use the phrase "clip round the ear".

The policies are both knowingly populist (eg singling out paedophiles), and highly authoritarian. Consistent with the general approach of their other policies, in fact.

Though at one point the populism triumphs, where they want police uniforms to be demilitarised, and to have police on foot and bikes instead of in cars (so, walking unarmed round the inner city assaulting mouthy youths? Wonder what the police will think of that). They do not as far as I can see mention cricket on the village green.

[mjmooney]

...Why are the BNP authoritarian? Well, I'll have to admit to not knowing the details of their manifesto but I'd hazard a guess that their views on crime and justice aren't exactly liberal? ...

Yes, they are in favour of both corporal and capital punishment. For capital punishment they say there should be incontrovertible proof of guilt, such as DNA evidence or "being caught red-handed", which will bring a laugh for anyone with the slightest knowledge of how many people have previously been convicted but were in fact innocent.

They are also in favour of casual assault by the police, and they actually use the phrase "clip round the ear".

The policies are both knowingly populist (eg singling out paedophiles), and highly authoritarian. Consistent with the general approach of their other policies, in fact.

Though at one point the populism triumphs, where they want police uniforms to be demilitarised, and to have police on foot and bikes instead of in cars (so, walking unarmed round the inner city assaulting mouthy youths? Wonder what the police will think of that). They do not as far as I can see mention cricket on the village green.

The last sentence hits the nail on the head. They appeal to the fantasy of a 1950s Britain that never actually existed, much like the Tories' wittering in the 1980s about "Victorian values" (did they mean the Empire, or little boys working up chimneys, I wonder?)

It is irresponsible of any would-be politician to imply that the world can be a simple, trouble-free place. It can't; we all have to deal with complex issues, we always have had and we always will. To pretend otherwise is simply naive.

One man's utopia is another man's hell.

[tonyh29]

Tories' wittering in the 1980s about "Victorian values" (did they mean the Empire, or little boys working up chimneys, I wonder?)

I always took it that they actually meant the Victorian radicalism of someone like Gladstone i.e about education and self-improvement ,reviving some of the provincial enterprise that made Victorian Britain

but I guess each will view a statement in their own way :-)

[tonyh29]

which will bring a laugh for anyone with the slightest knowledge of how many people have previously been convicted but were in fact innocent.

The US have the death penalty for example , are there stats for how many innocent people they have executed ? I don't know but I assume they are still talking about due process and not summary executions on the spot ?

I don't actually think that any party advocating the death penalty would get elected in this country anyway

[snowychap]

Victorian values?

I thought they meant debtors' prisons, selling children for gin, unemployment, average life expectancy of 42 and so on. :winkold:

[kidlewis]

We all knew Labour would get trounced here, but what an awful result for the Lib Dems. I really thought they might gain some ground, but instead it seems as thought the country has just lurched to the right.

try the whole of europe

[tonyh29]

Victorian values?

I thought they meant debtors' prisons, selling children for gin, unemployment, average life expectancy of 42 and so on.

get back to your field woolly :-)

[snowychap]

Victorian values?

I thought they meant debtors' prisons, selling children for gin, unemployment, average life expectancy of 42 and so on.

get back to your field woolly :-)

He he. Sorry.

[mjmooney]

Tories' wittering in the 1980s about "Victorian values" (did they mean the Empire, or little boys working up chimneys, I wonder?)

I always took it that they actually meant the Victorian radicalism of someone like Gladstone i.e about education and self-improvement ,reviving some of the provincial enterprise that made Victorian Britain

Yes, of course they did. And of course they had a point.

But that's what I'm getting at - there are always two sides to a story; there never WAS a "golden age" than we can return to if only we elect the latest batch of crackpot extremists.

I have some respect for traditional Tory values, even if I very rarely agree with them. I have zero respect for the BNP and UKIP.

[Awol]

If I've got this right then, it has been suggested that a party's stance on a particular divisive issue has a direct correlation to where it sits on the 'left right' political spectrum (imperfect, but at least a benchmark).

Most are agreed that the BNP are nasty characters at best, with two main policies that distinguish them and cause outcry. It's interesting to see how they compare to the current incarnation of the Labour Party.

1) Racism. Clearly unacceptable in all its forms and socially cancerous. I think that applies to the BNP but I also object to white people being discriminated against when attempting to join for example, the Metropolitan Police. Labour have brought in this and similar policies but for some reason it is deemed acceptable by people who despise Griffin and Co.

2) Immigration. The BNP propose financial assistance for immigrants who wish to return to their homeland and deportation of illegal immigrants, according to their manifesto. It does not state that anyone who isn't white is to be chucked out forthwith. Maybe they really intend to do that, who knows? It's certainly not what they are campaigning on and therefore not what people being labelled "scum" are actually voting for.

Labour already have a very similar policy in existence now and has done for a number of years. Home Office - Voluntary Assisted Return scheme Shame it took an FOI request to get them to admit it.

3) Nationalisation - BNP are much further left than any of the main parties by wanting to nationalise the car and ship building industries, utilities etc, the total opposite to the free market approach of Lab/Tories.

So both parties display racist tendencies to a greater or lesser extent, and both have some similarities in their approach to immigration, particularly the contentious end (exempting the obvious one about a total halt to incoming migrants from the BNP). Their economic policies show the BNP to be well to the left of Labour who occupy the traditional centre right.

For the record I have a strong dislike for both of them,but it is interesting to try and get past the rhetoric and have a look at what they are really about, the disturbing amount of similarities, and the inadequacy of trying to use out dated labels to describe (and therefore understand) modern political movements and parties.

[bickster]

1) Racism. Clearly unacceptable in all its forms and socially cancerous. I think that applies to the BNP but I also object to white people being discriminated against when attempting to join for example, the Metropolitan Police. Labour have brought in this and similar policies but for some reason it is deemed acceptable by people who despise Griffin and Co.

You've made that bit up

[Awol]

1) Racism. Clearly unacceptable in all its forms and socially cancerous. I think that applies to the BNP but I also object to white people being discriminated against when attempting to join for example, the Metropolitan Police. Labour have brought in this and similar policies but for some reason it is deemed acceptable by people who despise Griffin and Co.

You've made that bit up

Did I? I haven't heard the anti fascists complaining on here about "positive discrimination". Is acquiescence with a policy not the same as acceptance?

[kidlewis]

readin the BNP policies it's quite clear they expect Gold to start falling from the sky with the mass of the SUN. It's comepletely unsustainable.

What we need to do is remove the underclass of our society, whether it be through forced work, education or a gun. One of those three though.

When someones response to not working is "cos I can't be bothered" then it's quite simple.... make them.

[snowychap]

^Where are you going to get your gold from? :?

[bickster]

1) Racism. Clearly unacceptable in all its forms and socially cancerous. I think that applies to the BNP but I also object to white people being discriminated against when attempting to join for example, the Metropolitan Police. Labour have brought in this and similar policies but for some reason it is deemed acceptable by people who despise Griffin and Co.

You've made that bit up

Did I? I haven't heard the anti fascists complaining on here about "positive discrimination". Is acquiescence with a policy not the same as acceptance?

a) It's not exactly policy

No one's said it doesn't mean they don't believe it

c) It just might not be as high a priority in the grand scheme of things for most people

So yes, you've made it up Jon

[Awol]

a) It's not exactly policy

With respect Bicks it is policy. It's rather ironically known as the Equalities Act which encourages positive discrimination (or more accurately racism) by making it legal.

No one's said it doesn't mean they don't believe it

Fair comment

c) It just might not be as high a priority in the grand scheme of things for most people

Quite. Where as racism favouring white people is viewed differently (more important) and therefore higher on peoples list of concerns. Strange one that.

It's not something I get particularly upset about but these are the very kind of issues that are winning voters round to the BNP. They have to be addressed and either acted upon or debunked if the BNP are to be prevented from gaining more support.

So yes, you've made it up Jon

I think your points 'a' and 'c' suggest the opposite but hey hoo, just trying to stimulate some debate..