| |
|
Which leads me to ask what are the defining characteristics of parties not of the centre? And are those characteristics still compatible with credibility?
On the Left, presumably, you get more and more emphasis on social equality and a committment to social services and infrastructure owned and controlled by the government and directly paid for in tax. Eventually you reach knotty questions about the legitimacy of private property which moderate leftists mostly wish to avoid. There presumably ought to be a committment to the dismantling of the unelected House of Lords and ultimately a rejection of the Queen as even titular head of state (something, incidentally, I'd quite like to see.)
Interestingly, the Left's relationship with religion is ambiguous. From a strict Marxist point of view, the strong Left ought to be tearing down the Church of England, and actually from a purely democratic standpoint it seems to me unfeasible to have one Church involved in government. All or none, I think, and if any, then also a section for atheists and agnostics...
The problems with these positions are said to be as follows: in the past, they have lead to bloated infrastructure eating more money than the services it appears to maintain, with a poor systemic response time and a dehumanising red-tape culture. The high tax-burden on high wage-earners has caused them to take their money out of Britain all together, and stifled growth in Industry (growth being asserted as an unequivocal good).
On the Right, what is there? Lower taxation (but not by much, as far as I can see; Labour seem to have paired it right down) and more industries and services in private hands; a smaller government infrastructure, less red tape - but Labour is, at the moment, doing these things with at least as much enthusiasm as any Conservative party. There ought to be issues of personal freedom, but the Tory remnant is very blue rinse. 'Personal freedom' at this point means things like gay marriage, decriminalised marijuana, and less prudish attitudes to sex in general. That's never going to play with what has become the last bastion of Toryism.
There are some floating issues, though: immigration and developmental aid, terror and diplomacy, and the Environment. These are all aspects of common and foreign policy stemming in many if not most or all cases from issues of global social justice. Given the emphasis on collective benefits and the general good, you'd expect Labour to be a strongly environmentalist party - and in theory, it is. But anything which threatens the expansion of the job market or restrains the activities of business to make money is unpopular with the unions, and Blair's friends in the boardrooms, and so Labour remains unwilling and unable to challenge corporate environmental misdeeds. Fines for environmental damage are pocket change in corporate terms - ti's cheaper to pay them than to abide by the law (2).
If no one is willing or able to present an alterative economic paradigm, these are the defining issues of our political landscape; these will come to redefine 'Left' and 'Right'. A party which wanted to be genuinely different would have to produce a commitment to greater transparency - British governments are obsessive and inveterate secret-keepers; greater and more open democracy - information, voting, and corporate accountability; environmentally prudent; coherent in foregin policy, notions of justice and accountabolity, and immigration; and committed to personal freedoms such as sexuality. But most of all, it would have to understand that the electorate has grasped the difference between style ans substance - it's no longer any good to engage in 'trust-building exercises'; you have to be worthy of trust.
More as it comes to me - hope I haven't derailed my own thread. |
|
|
