Friday, 23 September 2016

Labour, Labour, Labour....

BLOG 3 23/09/2016

Today the Labour Party continues to haggle and argue about rules, processes and their Party, their Party. Apparently oblivious to what appears an almost rudderless country without a generally known vision. Months have gone by, absorbed they are Labour, Labour, Labour indicating to many people the importance of the Party is all important and the Country, if  mentioned- a mere backdrop.
After their Party, as has been mentioned the next priority is the Tory Party. The evil, selfish, hated Tories. Over the last few weeks the actual mention of Tory has gained new emphasis, a new accent almost expletive.
When I was becoming a little aware of Politics in the 60’s and 70’s it became apparent much more energy was dissipated by the Country stepping horizontally from Left to Right and back again. Changes sometimes in boundaries, education, names of offices, different priorities- and apart from effort, and work of the change: there was the cost. If advantageous it would be worthwhile.
My observation tells me and I have seen this at local level: that when you have only two Parties their contacts, the machinery of function remain in place. It appears to me we have had the effect of an Animal Farm but as a dichotomy.
When Mr Blair ran the Labour Party it felt to me that perhaps you did not need a Party with a powerful leader? If the followers re-iterate the same, vote the same and all the rest: what is the point?
Recently one wonders if Mr Cameron erred about having a Referendum purely to appease the problems within his own Party? At local level time and time again I saw policies manoeuvred for the benefit of their own. Casting a shadow too on the opposing group appeared a worthwhile endeavour.
The Labour Party appears more concerned with electability than having any Plan. The more it argues within itself the more destructive it is being perceived.
For an outsider, it is impossible to see how anti-nuclear/socialist can be reconciled with New Labour who tells us they moved on with Tony Blair and many of which have middle-class incomes and do very well.
It seems perhaps they would do better accepting this and splitting: voting together on the issues they agree with, but accepting their differences? Generally smaller Parties could be a possible way forward where MP’s would need to be more in tune with constituency feeling and needs, and vote accordingly also with conscience, rather than what the Party tells them?
I am unable to grasp why the Labour Party cannot see their main potential threat is the Right which is UKIP. It is they in the Referendum who took a swathe of Northern England, which were Labour heartlands?  The vision and the emotion UKIP are displaying are further Right than any Conservative government?
This is merely my opinion.

No comments:

Post a Comment