Fair enough. I’m simply asking why you can’t seem to recognise that there are plenty of legitimate reasons for not wishing to engage in / legitimise a system that is fundamentally unrepresentative?

Or why we should have to put up with living under such a system, which deliberately removes any apparatus we could use to change it?

Why should we have to endorse something we disagree with, simply because we are given no alternative?

I don’t (and would never) expect anybody and everybody to agree with or pander to my points of view on life. That is the spirit of anarchism, and is probably about the only thing that you could be sure that “all” anarchists would agree on!

All we want is a genuine, equal say in the running of our own lives and of our society. If that’s considered unreasonable, then so be it – I’m an unreasonable guy.

As it stands at the moment, I don’t believe voting gives us a voice – rather, it takes our voice away. Thus I join with the rest of the pissed off masses into a much louder voice by refusing to vote.

‘Who’s the man with the plan now?The disintegration of the markets brings the end of neoliberalism; now the paradigm’s shifted, a new kind of politics is needed’

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/08/economy.recession

An extract:

‘The markets cannot be allowed to manage people’s long-term social security or pension schemes. The principle of social insurance has to be reasserted. Markets cannot be allowed to deliver welfare reform, nor are they suitable for allocating the resources of care and health provision. The market has created a crisis in housing provision. Privatisation and proxy markets have undermined the ethos of public service and led to dysfunctional, demoralised organisations. The culture of capitalism has invaded every aspect of British society. Its logic of profit-seeking, its nihilism and instrumental drive toward efficiency and cost-reduction destroys creativity, and is profoundly at odds with the promotion of human wellbeing.’

Therein are the hostages.

Now, my question is what’s next? How do we go from here?

I would appreciate if you kept me posted on how you see this developing. Would be happy to help in anyway I can — but like everyone here, finding enough time devote to this would be a challenge. But am up for it.

Look forward to your thoughts on this.

No need to be sorry.

Lets not prolong it. I was sharing a view which I believe is quite prevalent. And oddly enough was also the case in the US, where Obama came along and tried to engage a huge section of the electorate.

The next real politician will see this unaddressed constituency and mobilise them, and this economic crisis is the starting gun.

I do not wish to prolong this and sidetrack what has been an excellent thread. My views have been set out on here.

I will simply add two further comments – Refresh, you say, ‘You cannot blame the electorate for being switched off.’ Yes I can.

I suspect that you are looking back at good old days that were not so good in some of your sentiment. I do not have to indulge groups simply for being brassed off. This goes right back to the article. Civic participation has to be that, civic. That means dropping the self indulgence when you don’t get your own way. Politicians do not and can not exist simply to legislate your prejudices.

Secondly, Dave S, ‘I do not vote for any political party because no political party exists that can represent my views.’

Again, you are mixing participation with franchise. Is there not the faintest, remotest possibility that your vies do not chime with a substantial number of the public and that the public are not obliged to pander to what sounds remarkably close to a hissy-fit.

That thought would actually ahve more legitimacy if two party politics had been consolidated under Blair, the opposite it the case. The number of parties on the ballot rose post 1997 and rose substantially. There is a difference between political grievance and self-indulgence. I sympathise with parts of what you have to say, I really do. But you are at heart self indulgent here. Sorry.

‘There is an argument that runs like this: Not happy with the system? Then don’t give it legitimacy.’

That deserves short shrift. Not Happy with the system? Stop being so self indulgent.

If a person does not vote they are effectively saying, ‘I do not care, you, the others can go out there and decide on my behalf. My views are not strong enough for me to express a preference.’

Not so – not even remotely so!

I do not vote for any political party because no political party exists that can represent my views.

How could such a political party ever exist inside of a system which, by definition, cannot represent my views?

Why should anybody be forced to accept a system which by definition, cannot truly represent the views of everybody it purports to represent?

My view is that systems of centralised, hierarchical power should not exist in the first place. That by definition of their design, they disenfranchise and disempower almost everybody!

We are placed inside of this system of power against our will, without being asked whether we think it is an appropriate one.

The same system of power specifically goes out of it’s way to prevent us expressing our outrage at how utterly inappropriate and corrupt it is.

The same system of power also allows very heated “debates”, but within a strictly limited spectrum of “acceptable” viewpoints.

It presents us with so-called “choices” like: “Which would you prefer – neoliberal capitalism, or neoconservative capitalism?”

Well, what if you want neither!?

People like you propose that we should just continue participating in something that we fundamentally disagree with, and that if we refuse to vote, then we are somehow “apathetic” about it!?

Well, if pathetically low voter turnouts are not counted as a condemnation of the system, and if “spoiled” votes are not counted as a condemnation of the system, then how, pray tell, do we get to condemn this system and design a new one?

Take to the streets, and have the police agitate and arrest us if we do anything which poses even the smallest of threats to the status quo, while the media smear us and politicians create new laws to make sure we can’t do it again?

We can’t even do that!!!

Don’t you get it? We are entirely inside of this system of power, and it is entirely designed to make sure that whoever we vote for (or even if we don’t vote), the state always wins.

It is not apathy, but antipathy! Of course, politicians and the media love to go on about voter “apathy”, because to admit that the vast majority of the population almost certainly despite all slimy politicians and their corrupt systems of power equally, would be to admit that everything they stand for is completely illegitimate (which it is).

And thus, I refuse to participate and lend legitimacy to something I find utterly despicable and wish to destroy.

When we can vote for “back to the drawing board”, then maybe we’ll talk.

But even then, it depends who is doing the asking – whether that entity is actually giving us more control over our lives, or whether it’s once again just dropping a few crumbs of power off the tables of the elite to pacify us.

There’s no government like no government!

Why should we graciously accept the token gestures and meaningless “reforms” offered to us by people who amount to little more than the latest in a long line of corrupt, murderous land thieves?

Why the hell should we settle for anything less than control of our own lives, and a fair and equal say in the running of our world? A world which we belong to – not the other way around.

So no thanks, I won’t accept or participate in their system.

It would be as big a problem if people did adopt the couldn’t care less attitude. When people, previously passionate about politics and how they’re governed are switched off then its a different matter.

You cannot blame the electorate for being switched off.

Political parties when in election mode are no more than marketing machines. If politics is turned into a matter of personality then why would you want to insist the public turns out? Presumably the outcomes are going to be similar.

Blair and Bush keep relying on history to bale them out – why? Because they are unconvincing. There is no one left who feels able to lend credible support to their folly.

In a two-party state, it is quite feasible that the alternative to the incumbent is unpalatable. Which it was. And no doubt will be again. I am of the view that where there was a risk of the Tories getting in, people turned out to keep them out. Where it was possible for LibDem to get in, they backed them up. Blair did get a slapping, of that there is no doubt, and he got it from his ‘own side’.

Either we accept that the electorate is sovereign or they are fodder offering nothing more than legitimacy.

‘There is an argument that runs like this: Not happy with the system? Then don’t give it legitimacy.’ That deserves short shrift. Not Happy with the system? Stop being so self indulgent.

If a person does not vote they are effectively saying, ‘I do not care, you, the others can go out there and decide on my behalf. My views are not strong enough for me to express a preference.’ That turnout figure you quote is a red-herring. Franchise is the important concept here, not turnout as such.
I suspect that not much was made of the turnout by the pundits because firstly turnout was higher in 2005 than in 2001 (from memory, happy to be corrected) and also because it would be an admission by said pundits that their coverage was not effective in forming strong and influential opinions.

I agree with one of the later comments that history will probably be kind to Blair.

Equally, I just cannot understand, ‘As for hostages, you can consider them disenfranchised or in fear of an alternative outcome.’ How can someone be disenfranchised by (somehow) being compelled to support one particular party, but be in fear of the alternative. That makes little sense.

Here’s a thought, maybe people got turned off politics by the hyper bilious atmosphere that the media and talkboards created? Maybe the politics-as-blood-sport atmosphere we seemed to create over the past ten years looked unpleasant and gave a sense of hopelessness. The professional malcontent and the self-indulgent crowd and the conspiracy cranks won. That is sadder than anything else in your comment.

Anarchy may be too strong a word — I accept that Leon

It’s not too strong a word, it’s entirely the wrong word imo but I see a bit more clearly where you’re coming from now.

You said:

and they could offer incentives to get it done.

Like the, alleged, deal with the Ulster Unionists over 42 days?

We should be careful what we wish for, I think.

Nyrone, you are right in saying that I have definitely been influenced by the scale of Obama’s grassroots campaign.

Shamit, thanks for the constructive feedback as always. There is going to be a discussion as to which candidates we support – I think that if we keep our aims managable this should be possible. There will probably be some mistakes but as several commenters have said we need to try and convert online discussion into real world action.

I agree that we have a strongly centralised system. However I think it might be good if governments have to work a little harder in order to implement their legislative agenda. The prime minister’s party would still have the majority (unless its a minority govt), and they could offer incentives to get it done.

Because, the party is responsible to the electorate as a whole and not the individual — this is not US congress where individuals can vote the way they want.

With primaries, every MP, would be directly responsible for the wishes of their electorate irrespective of national interest or their party interest — which would lead to not very good governance. Anarchy may be too strong a word — I accept that Leon

*************************

Refresh

I think he was more whatever works — rather than adopting any particular way of delivering it. But he did believe that private sector has a role to play and I fear he believed in it too much sometimes.

And as for quangos and OfOffs (Thats very well put, btw) — I could not agree with you more. You are spot on mate.

It was never the case that everything he did was wrong. I liked the notion of levelling up.

But somehow he managed to switch people off, especially the electorate. In much the same way as Thatcher.

You make a very good point about Rwanda – but the touchstone for that intervention would have been whether he would have taken on the French for their complicity. Recall Clinton dithered too.

BTW you deserve a considered response to the specifics of policies you mention, but in a nutshell consider what he was actually doing, he was pursuing a globalisation agenda where all services provided by the state would be state regulated but provided by the private sector. His ‘success’ was that he was good at triangulating in time for the next day’s headline.

In a democracy, trade unions are as much a part of the regulatory system as the Ofcoms, Ofwats etc. Coming to the OfOffs, what was particularly galling was how OfOffs were part of the revolving door between industry and public sector. As no doubt will become clearer over the next few months.

I was talking about anarchy with regard to primaries for candidates for MPs

I’m really struggling to see how ordinary [non party member] people being able to vote one who a party put up as a candidate will create anarchy.

I was talking about anarchy with regard to primaries for candidates for MPs and not the blog related activities that could spur people. And I have highlighted my reasons @17.

I am not against volunteering or trying to elect those MPs who best represent our ideals and our hopes. I am for it whole heartedly and all the way. But that does not help the progressive cause or the issues much. Because, these MPs would still be subject to party whips and patronage of their leader — and thats what happens in a parliamentary democracy.

Therefore, to serve the progressive cause best, we need to get beyond party lines and back those candidates irrespective of their party affiliations who represent our ideals and hope. Then you would have a progressive coalition that could influence party policies.

It took Blair, Brown, Mandelson about 12 years to change party policy and these people were the leaders of the party. The net helps but to make effective change you would need to build up a broader coalition so that in 5 – 10 years time there is a progressive coalition in all parties where the values that we hold dear are ubiquitious.

For example, I forget his name, but the Tory Social worker candidate who happens to be Black has very very strong progressive ideas. And also ideas about personal responsibility — very similar to Obama’s ideas. But should we shun him just because he is a Tory?

America’s politics is very different from ours where the constitution and the separation of powers give more freedom to elected officials to demonstrate their individuality. Which is rather difficult in our context.

So I am not against what Shariq has proposed — I am just saying that we need to build a broader coalition of ideas and create a common platform.

oh God, I just supported Ashik’s theory, that’s a first for me on PP. But he is right.

I take your points, but I don’t see how this kind of blog-related grassroots activism experiment would produce any kind of anarchy. Perhaps I’m over-simplifying it, but at it’s core, isn’t the general thrust of the idea to mobilize people via blogs to start taking a more active, practical real-world role in the political process? There will forever be people doing the same thing around specific issues (abortion, 42 days), I don’t think it’s a bad idea to try and base it around (mutually agreed upon) progressive candidates too. Surely it doesn’t have to be an either/or situation?

I’m not certain, but it appears that Shariq is throwing this idea out there due to watching and being inspired by the developments in the US campaign, specifically the effect that volunteers are having en-bloc for the Obama campaign in putting their time and energy where their mouths are, which is what social democracy should be about…surely this is important step going forward, in forging stronger relationships between the readers/writers of political blogs and the progressive candidates we don’t want to get kicked out.

It’s not perfect, but it sounds like a valuable experiment to me. Shariq sums it up well in his last line:

“The alternative is that we don’t have any control on the future direction of the party. The wrong people get voted out and the dismay with the political system continues”

I think you meant Shamit.

Why Blair?

Education and Health did improve — and it was done with progressive values. Those improvements especially in education are being reversing with an idiot of an Education Secretary who believes in Central Control and ideological dogma rather than educating our children. He gave Adonis political cover for academies and charter schools such that choice of schools is not only for the few but for the many.

University Education — the tuition fee concept is good as our universities need more money. And, alumni of our universities, do not put their hands in their pockets like the ones in US do. Thats why in the US, Harvard and MIT as well as colleges like Amherst can offer free education to those students coming from disadvantaged backgrounds. Funding from public coffers cannot support that. btw, 70% of the country now agree that tuition fees was a good idea when Blair left Office

Embarking on transforming government enabled by IT has brought major efficiencies and most importantly brought a basic level of service standard across the UK. Which not only improved service but brought the local government machinery to the 21st century by setting basic infrastructure standards. Again this was opposed by unions and by others. And now everyone loves it. There have been mistakes with IT but there have been far more successes in that area. But we dont hear about the successes — the traditional media cannot bear the thought of giving credit to Blair.

As did devolution of powers from Central to Local Government. And starting to empower Councillors — it all started in his premiership. Devolution in Scotland and Wales.

Same Prime Minister with vehement opposition from his Chancellor and crew, did force the Treasury to increase spending in NHS to European Standards. And, the results are there — there has been significant improvements. There is room for more improvement but no one can or should deny the massive improvements that have taken place.

Are the poorest in our country better off than they were 11 years ago — all statistics show that they are.

In international development, long before it became fashionable to talk about improving quality of life in developing nations especially Africa, he embarked on that journey and was supported by Brown. It is not because they think its only the moral thing but because it is in our interest. And, during his tenure as Prime Minister, UK kept all its promises.

And Intervention in foreign countries (lets forget Iraq where you and I disagree) did help — such as Kosovo, Sierra Leone, and I can bet if Blair was PM in 1994 he would have tried to do something in Rwanda. Remember, when the whole world stood by Blair literally forced Nato to put boots on the ground and go after that genocidal dictator. In Sierra Leone, he is regarded as a hero.

And, whether we like it or not, it was Blair who put together the Afghanistan coalition which included Iran, India, Pakistan, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Russia — and he made Britian proud in the international stage. Iraq war was the right thing to do but the wrong war at the wrong time.

Finally, Northern Ireland —

He achieved all this with idiots such as Balls, and Alexander and many union leaders and the chattering Comment is Free authors going on about what a disaster he is. And, why he should go so that the messiah Brown can take over.

10P would not have happened if Blair was not leaving office. And, funnily, Sarkozy wanted his blessings to win the elections and flaunted his relationship with Blair in a French Election. And that apparently helped him. As far away as Canada, Harper wants to be Blair, and so does Cameron.

The electorate sees a lot of Blair in Cameron and thats partly why he would probably win.

He was truly a progressive in his instincts and his actions. His governing philosophy was that central government should set the framework and set the standards that have to be achieved but he wanted to leave it to councils and communities to define the best ways to get there. And he accepted unlike his successor that there may be better ways to achieving than his ways only.

Thats why he was special. And, history would judge him rather kindly and would look at us and say we really dont like successful PMs. Thatcher saved the country and Blair healed it and moved it forward despite what the Comment is Free and the Daily Telegraph columns keep on talking about.

As for the party, the second election win was on the back of the notion that perhaps ‘he was the man with the plan’, and perhaps he was ‘playing a blinder’.

Don’t forget we’ve even had Rawnsley, Toynbee et al telling Brown to do something Labour, something Bold before its too late.