Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

nfe wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
To all those complaining that the Tory Scots had a focus on one issue; I think the wider context is being missed.

Firstly, they're still part of a larger political group, so I'm not sure you can break it down and say to the 'Conservative Tories' and the 'Conservatives' are campaigning on entirely separate platforms. When the Tory Prime Minister is putting out her manifesto, it's also the Scottish Tory Party's.

It is, but you wouldn't know it from any of their campaigning in Scotland, or barely even from the Scottish press. It's really becoming cult of personality stuff. The Scottish Tories are the Ruth Davidson Party. The Conservative logo usually features only as a tiny image in the bottom corner of their materials.

You may well be right. But none of that addresses the point made, primarily that it's not really within Davidson's role to start dictating Tory election policy, and to decry her for not doing so is hardly fair.

nfe wrote:


I'm afraid you could only think this if you have absolutely no familiarity with recent Scottish political discourse whatsoever. Everthing you are saying is exactly the opposite of the reality. It was the press, the Tories, and Labour who were able to dictate the terms of the campaign. It was they who insisted it was about another referendum. Unless directly questioned on it, all SNP spokespeople avoided it at all costs.

I watched two speeches by Davidson, two by Sturgeon, and one by Dugdale. I also consumed the headlines that appeared in the Press relating to the Scottish campaign in the GE more generally. My impressions are drawn from those. Perhaps the campaign was different from where you're standing, but I can only comment on what I witnessed coming out of the mouths of the party leaders.

Herzlos wrote:

 Whirlwind wrote:
That is less control as the UK then has absolutely no say on this whatsoever simply because of the amount of trade we do with the EU.

Not entirely - we only need to comply with EU regulations for stuff that is going out to the EU. So it's entirely possible we can make separate domestic market stuff cheaper by cutting regulations. Whether it's worth running 2 production setups for domestic/export is a different matter, but for companies that don't export, or export very little, it may be better for them to just give up trying to meet EU regulations.

Unfortunately that just means lower quality stuff for us, or poorer conditions. It may not even result in a reduction in costs.

There is only one group that can really benefit from this though - big business that already make huge profits and have enough lines in the manufacturing process (simply because there are enough units not sold to the EU) that they can tweak one or two so they can save some money on lesser standards. Any middle or small business simply won't have the market or the resources to have separate lines. They will have no choice but to comply with the highest standard they export to. A farmer is unlikely to be able to split their crops into EU and non-EU compliant food and so on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Honestly?

I can see a second EU referendum coming. Once the Tories finally admit we can't have our cake and eat it, and that pretty much everything

I doubt May would ever consent to that. She's hung her entire hat on the Brexit train now. No way we'll see a new referendum ahead of a new election.

That depends on how long May has. We can expect a new PM before the next GE. May is dead in the water and sinking. The Tories may just let her make a complete arse out of Wrexit and then the person coming in will just swing behind another referendum because they are 'listening to the younger generation'.

That was a point raised a long time ago. I think it said that the biggest companies and producers can lobby the EU to ensure that their products set the standards, thus helping to drive out smaller competitors. I could show the link but that thread was deleted.

Also, to address an earlier point, yes Corbyn can sack front benchers who undermine him. But his kind don't stop there. Soon he'll be changing the rules to help deselect those who disagree with him, whilst his Momentum goons attack said people, all in the pursuit of ideological purity.

 Future War Cultist wrote:

Also, to address an earlier point, yes Corbyn can sack front benchers who undermine him. But his kind don't stop there. Soon he'll be changing the rules to help deselect those who disagree with him, whilst his Momentum goons attack said people, all in the pursuit of ideological purity.

Want to expand on what 'his kind' are?

He wants to change the rules re: deselection as he has wanted for decades, but what's the innate problem with that? Why shouldn't CLPs have more power in deciding who represents them than the leadership?

 Future War Cultist wrote:
That was a point raised a long time ago. I think it said that the biggest companies and producers can lobby the EU to ensure that their products set the standards, thus helping to drive out smaller competitors. I could show the link but that thread was deleted.

...

I don't know how true that is but if there's anything to it, the UK government are liable to be even more prone to such influence.

nfe wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:

Also, to address an earlier point, yes Corbyn can sack front benchers who undermine him. But his kind don't stop there. Soon he'll be changing the rules to help deselect those who disagree with him, whilst his Momentum goons attack said people, all in the pursuit of ideological purity.

Want to expand on what 'his kind' are?

He wants to change the rules re: deselection as he has wanted for decades, but what's the innate problem with that? Why shouldn't CLPs have more power in deciding who represents them than the leadership?

I think what McCarthy there is implying is that Corbyn is a kind of mythical hellbeast many of Good and Proper linage here in the USA call a liberal.

It's nonsense, anyway. There was a big hullabaloo here in the US about Trump cutting all the ambassadors loose. It sucks, but it's actually in the right for the president to do, and generally elected officials are want to replace the staff with people who aren't going to constant disagree with them. This is nothing new.

 Luke_Prowler wrote:

nfe wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:

Also, to address an earlier point, yes Corbyn can sack front benchers who undermine him. But his kind don't stop there. Soon he'll be changing the rules to help deselect those who disagree with him, whilst his Momentum goons attack said people, all in the pursuit of ideological purity.

Want to expand on what 'his kind' are?

He wants to change the rules re: deselection as he has wanted for decades, but what's the innate problem with that? Why shouldn't CLPs have more power in deciding who represents them than the leadership?

I think what McCarthy there is implying is that Corbyn is a kind of mythical hellbeast many of Good and Proper linage here in the USA call a liberal.

It's nonsense, anyway. There was a big hullabaloo here in the US about Trump cutting all the ambassadors loose. It sucks, but it's actually in the right for the president to do, and generally elected officials are want to replace the staff with people who aren't going to constant disagree with them. This is nothing new.

Indeed. Though that isn't what Corbyn would like to do. It's not about him bringing his MPs into line or replacing them with his supporters. It's giving the power to do that to the membership. What I think FWC might be missing above is that Corbyn's position reduces the leader's ability to influence selection and gives more power to the party's grass roots. Currently, that favours Corbyn-supporting candidates in many constituencies, but he supported it when it would have heavily favoured Blairites, too.

Just because someone has the legal right to do X, doesn't mean that X is the morally right thing to do.

If the far left-wing takes over the Labour Party, perhaps the centrists -- Blue Labour -- will leave and join the Liberals in the centre-left.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Just because someone has the legal right to do X, doesn't mean that X is the morally right thing to do.

What exactly are you referring to, here? Obviously that's a perfectly factual statement,but I'm not sure what relevance it has to Corbyn or the possibilities of rebalancing Labour candidate selection in favour of local parties? Or are you just responding to the statement about Trump?

If the far left-wing...

If they're far left in mindset (they're not, but could be on a scale that anchors itself on what current discourse claims is the centre) then they certainly aren't in policy.

Liberals in the centre-left.

I've no idea how anyone with a handle on UK politics can think that the Liberals are centre-left.

 Luke_Prowler wrote:

nfe wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:

Also, to address an earlier point, yes Corbyn can sack front benchers who undermine him. But his kind don't stop there. Soon he'll be changing the rules to help deselect those who disagree with him, whilst his Momentum goons attack said people, all in the pursuit of ideological purity.

Want to expand on what 'his kind' are?

He wants to change the rules re: deselection as he has wanted for decades, but what's the innate problem with that? Why shouldn't CLPs have more power in deciding who represents them than the leadership?

I think what McCarthy there is implying is that Corbyn is a kind of mythical hellbeast many of Good and Proper linage here in the USA call a liberal.

It's nonsense, anyway. There was a big hullabaloo here in the US about Trump cutting all the ambassadors loose. It sucks, but it's actually in the right for the president to do, and generally elected officials are want to replace the staff with people who aren't going to constant disagree with them. This is nothing new.

If you knew Corbyn's past, his views and who he's friends with (IRA, Helzbolla, Russia etc.) you'd understand why I'm wary of him instead of chucking insults at me. The word liberal (or what you Americans call a liberal) is thrown around a lot, but Corbyn really is one.

nfe wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Just because someone has the legal right to do X, doesn't mean that X is the morally right thing to do.

What exactly are you referring to, here? Obviously that's a perfectly factual statement,but I'm not sure what relevance it has to Corbyn or the possibilities of rebalancing Labour candidate selection in favour of local parties? Or are you just responding to the statement about Trump?

If the far left-wing...

If they're far left in mindset (they're not, but could be on a scale that anchors itself on what current discourse claims is the centre) then they certainly aren't in policy.

Liberals in the centre-left.

I've no idea how anyone with a handle on UK politics can think that the Liberals are centre-left.

Specifically Trump, and more generally I am opposing the idea that things are good because they aren't illegal.

As for Corbyn, I don't think it's a problem if the far left seizes control of the party. If they have enough popular support, it's impossible not to happen. The one source of trouble I can see is that it's apparently the budget members driving this move. If the long-term full price members dislike it enough, they can disrupt the local party organisation by not cooperating. Local organisation remains vital for getting the vote out during a real election.

The Labour Party has history of "Blue Labour" members breaking off and forming a centre-left party, then joining the Liberals. That is what the Social Democrat Party was about in the early 80s.

 Future War Cultist wrote:

If you knew Corbyn's past, his views and who he's friends with (IRA, Helzbolla, Russia etc.)

Communicating with =/= best buds.
Parliamentarians using parlliamentary language when referring to other parliamentarians (domestic or foreign) =/= best buds.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Specifically Trump, and more generally I am opposing the idea that things are good because they aren't illegal.

Well, certainly no opposition to that sentiment from me.

As for Corbyn, I don't think it's a problem if the far left seizes control of the party.

I think this type of language is a real problem in current political discourse. It's really just propaganda. They're not the far left. They're just the left. In global terms, they're the centre-left. Similarly, they're not seizing control. If there's a takeover happening at all, then it's the party being taken back to its roots after it was seized by the Blairites.

It was Blair who controversially got rid of Clause 4, the commitment to public ownership of business which was their commitment to socialism. To return to the original constitution is a significant move to the left. In European frame of reference it would put them pretty far left.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It was Blair who controversially got rid of Clause 4, the commitment to public ownership of business which was their commitment to socialism. To return to the original constitution is a significant move to the left. In European frame of reference it would put them pretty far left.

Well I'm glad we're agreed it's a return to the core principles that have rooted the party for most of its history rather than an entryist seizure. It really isn't the far left in European terms at all. Most of Europe have significantly more prominent and successful leftist parties than the UK where Corbyn's Labour wouldn't stand out at all.

nfe wrote:

I think this type of language is a real problem in current political discourse. It's really just propaganda. They're not the far left. They're just the left. In global terms, they're the centre-left. Similarly, they're not seizing control. If there's a takeover happening at
all, then it's the party being taken back to its roots after it was seized by the Blairites.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to be blunt here. No. You are factually, indisputably, incorrect, both historically and with regards to contemporary events. I'll elaborate.



To put it on a general scale, you have the liberal left, then the socialist left, and then the hard left. The Labour Party has incorporated members of all three stripes (and in between) for the longest time, and historically speaking, one of the hardest task of any would be Labour leader has been chivvying them all in line to form a cohesive whole. Depending on the leader and their own personal sympathies, the dominance of any of those stripes of 'leftie' within the party has risen and fallen. I'll show the distinction historically first.

To provide an example of the liberal left, one has simply to look to New Labour or (as mentioned by KK) the SDP breakaway from the party back in the 1980's. They tend to be more focused on human rights concerns than the plight of the workers, in terms of political philosophy. Much more a case of the metropolitan elite. New Labour has tarnished them quite badly, but the reality is that not every Liberal style Labour politician is a 'Blairite' (with all the word implies). Most of them would be equally at home in the Liberal Democrats, but they joined the Labour Party because they have more ambition/desire to affect policy than sitting in opposition forever.

To provide an example of the socialist left, you want to look at James Callaghan. Classic case of a man torn between the liberal and hard left wings of the party. He sat firmly in the middle, passing legislation to deny immigrants access to the country to protect markets whilst at the same time making it illegal to discriminate on the basis of ethnicity when hiring. He drew up the Social Contract for the trade Unions to get them to accept wage stagnation in exchange for food subsidies and rent freezes, and so forth. He re-affirmed the Labour Party's links with the Unions, but at the same time had no compunctions in blocking them when it came to what he saw as being for the good of the country. To this day, Callaghan is slagged off people on both other ends of the party as a turncoat, but I find him to be an excellent example of a British socialism.

Another example would be Neil Kinnock, who in one speech against the hard left said "I am telling you, no matter how entertaining, how fulfilling to short-term egos – you can't play politics with people's jobs and with people's services or with their homes."] The Socialist left wing of the party is left-wing, in a nutshell, but they ultimately retain a desire to improve the lot of the people through existing State apparatus than radical reform.

With regards to the Hard Left, you need look no further than the Bennites. Tony Benn himself was the kind of man who described Chairman Mao as 'one of the greatest figures of the twentieth century. Michael Foot promoted leaving the EEC, abolishing the House of Lords, complete nuclear disarmament and so on. You have the more recent Trotskyist pressure group within Labour, Militant, who effectively pressured for the Marxist revolution. Generally speaking, the hardcore left hate capitalism, put horrible human rights violators on a pedestal because they oppose capitalism, and tend to believe more in the idea that serious hard left economic and social policies should be undertaken for the good of the nation, irrespective of who they trample on.

So. All that being said, you do get plenty of people who sit in between the different categories, or who take a bit of a pick and mix approach. A lot of Liberal Labour types support nuclear disarmament for example, which is normally a hallmark of the hard left (albeit for completely different reasons - the Hard Left views armaments as a tool of oppression and exploitation by the rich, the more liberal types look at it on more humanitarian 'Aren't nukes nasty' ground).





To bring it sharply into contemporary focus, the hard left has been on the decline in Labour for quite some time. Kinnock committed quite firmly to trying to break the Hard left's influence as a 'party within a party', and Blair further sidelined them, promoting MP's of a more liberal stripe. Militant died a slow and painful death because nobody in this country was interested in the revolution anymore. Living standards improved, and it seemed less and less relevant. That generally destroyed most of the Hard Left even on a local level for the Labour party.

In other words, the Hard Left have, until extremely recently, been reduced to a bare rump within the Labour Party. But there are still survivors. The most prominent one right now is John McDonnell, Corbyn's right hand man. He served under that wonderful Ken Livingstone as part of the GLC, insulted the Tories so nastily in campaigning that he got sued (successfully) for libel, has publicly been recorded saying that he's a Marxist (even if he later tried to deny it). Meanwhile, Seamus Milne has become Corbyn's other hand, who generally hates Europe, and spends his time writing about how Soviet communism 'encompassed genuine idealism', how terrorists are all the Wests fault and they totally deserve it, and how great Putin is. So they're very much present in the highest echelons of Corbyn's ruling group right now.

In terms of local party takeovers, most of this has been done by Momentum, the most recent 'party within a party'. They espouse to support Corbyn, but not directly take orders from him. I think that's a load of bollocks personally, considering their chairman quite literally occasonally works in Corbyn's office. That chairman is Jon Lansman, who worked as chief fixer for Tony Benn (he who was mentioned above in the hard left category) and supported him in his challenge against Kinnock (he who was mentioned in the socialist left column above). Now Momentum itself is not intrinsically hard left, it's populated quite considerably by younger people with no such affiliations or interests. There's been a dedicated effort on the part of many hard leftists to take control of the helm however, Laura Murray (the Womens Officer for Momentum) has publicly written about seeing such hard leftists bullying younger members.

Private Eye has detailed in several instances a number of those harder left candidates who have succeeded in worming their way onto local Labour positions of power recently. Up until the most recent election, they'd run out of steam. People had grown bored of Corbyn, and that meant that they were having difficulty getting the support they needed. Now that Corbyn's been revived, it is quite likely that the previous trend will continue.


To summarise, the hard left has always historically been a presence within the Labour Party, and until very recently, quite a strong one. Quite aside from the fact of whether or not Corbyn himself is one (I suspect he sits with a foot in both the socialist and hard left camps personally), he has surrounded himself with remnants of the hard left. And those remnants are doing their damnedest to re-entrench themselves by riding on his coat-tails.

From the top of my head, Left-wing governments, proper left and not this new Labour horsegak, have only been in power 20 out of the last 100 years in UK history. So the myth they damage the country is just that: a myth.

It's good for the nation to tilt to the left now and again IMO.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Just because someone has the legal right to do X, doesn't mean that X is the morally right thing to do.

If the far left-wing takes over the Labour Party, perhaps the centrists -- Blue Labour -- will leave and join the Liberals in the centre-left.

I absolutely agree that it's not the morally right thing to do, but my arguing is that is not unprecedented nor necessarily morally wrong. I'm more arguing from a pragmatic point of view and I think there is a point is asking what would it have meant if Corbyn didn't remove those people. I'm highly doubtful he would have gotten any thing for other than weak praise for it and still been left in some kind of compromised position.

 Luke_Prowler wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Just because someone has the legal right to do X, doesn't mean that X is the morally right thing to do.

If the far left-wing takes over the Labour Party, perhaps the centrists -- Blue Labour -- will leave and join the Liberals in the centre-left.

I absolutely agree that it's not the morally right thing to do, but my arguing is that is not unprecedented nor necessarily morally wrong. I'm more arguing from a pragmatic point of view and I think there is a point is asking what would it have meant if Corbyn didn't remove those people. I'm highly doubtful he would have gotten any thing for other than weak praise for it and still been left in some kind of compromised position.

It sounds rather like a red coup to oust the non Corbynites.
That would unite but also mean they risk lurching too far left and pandering to momentum.

There needs to be a left. But not crazy fall off cliff left.

 jhe90 wrote:

 Luke_Prowler wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Just because someone has the legal right to do X, doesn't mean that X is the morally right thing to do.

If the far left-wing takes over the Labour Party, perhaps the centrists -- Blue Labour -- will leave and join the Liberals in the centre-left.

I absolutely agree that it's not the morally right thing to do, but my arguing is that is not unprecedented nor necessarily morally wrong. I'm more arguing from a pragmatic point of view and I think there is a point is asking what would it have meant if Corbyn didn't remove those people. I'm highly doubtful he would have gotten any thing for other than weak praise for it and still been left in some kind of compromised position.

It sounds rather like a red coup to oust the non Corbynites.
That would unite but also mean they risk lurching too far left and pandering to momentum.

There needs to be a left. But not crazy fall off cliff left.

If only we didn't have to suffer as result of pandering to the the crazy fall off cliff right.

 Ketara wrote:

To put it on a general scale, you have the liberal left, then the socialist left, and then the hard left.

I guess that what you call "Hard Left" is actually the Left-Libertarianism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism). Liberal Left would be the Liberal Socialism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_socialism) and the Socialist Left...well, that's a tricky one, because it seems to point out towards Social Democracy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy). Still, it is not to be confused with Democratic Socialism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism), because it's really a broader wave.

But from what you are describing, it looks like you confuse things from either of these strains.

I wouldn't try to talk about "Hard Left", because it's an oversimplification, usually used indeed as propaganda from the other side to strike fear in the heart of ignorant voters...and it's just the same to talk about "Hard Right".

Links to wikipedia aren't the absolute truth, sure, but it gives a general idea of the situation of the Left.

 Ketara wrote:

nfe wrote:

I think this type of language is a real problem in current political discourse. It's really just propaganda. They're not the far left. They're just the left. In global terms, they're the centre-left. Similarly, they're not seizing control. If there's a takeover happening at
all, then it's the party being taken back to its roots after it was seized by the Blairites.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to be blunt here. No. You are factually, indisputably, incorrect, both historically and with regards to contemporary events. I'll elaborate.

To put it on a general scale, you have the liberal left, then the socialist left, and then the hard left.

Sorry, you've taken the time to write a lengthy post that deserves a comprehensive response but it all revolves around this simplistic tripartite subdivision of the left, places folks into it uncritically, and omits any wider contextual issues. It doesn't directly address anything I said. Fundamentally, it will never be appropriate to describe a bunch of guys who want to work within the Westminster system as the far- or the hard-left, however people might attempt to spin it.

Sarouan wrote:
I wouldn't try to talk about "Hard Left", because it's an oversimplification, usually used indeed as propaganda from the other side to strike fear in the heart of ignorant voters...and it's just the same to talk about "Hard Right".

nfe wrote:
Sorry, you've taken the time to write a lengthy post that deserves a comprehensive response but it all revolves around this simplistic tripartite subdivision of the left, places folks into it uncritically, and omits any wider contextual issues. It doesn't directly address anything I said... Fundamentally, it will never be appropriate to describe a bunch of guys who want to work within the Westminster system as the far- or the hard-left, however people might attempt to spin it.

I think what's being missed here was my introductory sentence, 'To put it on a general scale'. You could break either of those three rough classifications down into practically as many types of 'leftism' as you possess politicians. Everyone has a slightly different political philosophy, and frankly, left wing politics subdivides more times than christianity.

But for the purposes of general discussion about British politics, trying to subdivide a dedicated Marxist who has a tinge of Stalin's 'communism in one country' from a devout Trotskyite is a pointless task. It is adequate to categorise both as 'Hard Left' for the purposes of this discussion, because both would be perceived as such by the general public. If you insist on saying that anyone who enters Westminster could by definition never be hard-left, you're entering into the political game of No True Scotsman.

With regards to what I'm dubbing as the 'Socialist Left', I'm aware it's somewhat ill-defined. The problem is that British socialism as a rule of thumb is (to give some more context) somewhat ill-defined (and potentially bourgeoisie depending on who you talk to ). Again, for generalised descriptive purposes, I'd classify it as those who have a desire to maintain links to socialist roots (i.e. the unions) and philosophy (working towards the good of the common working man; as opposed to the more liberal bent which works towards the good of everyone), but are unwilling to go to extreme measures to do so (which would harm a substantial number of people irrelevant of social background) and are willing to work more or less within the level of state apparatus which exists.

That's what I would dub 'British socialism', but I'm aware that it's a somewhat rough around the edges definition. The separation between them and the Hard Left is perceivable within the history of the British Labour Party however, so trying to pretend that nobody of the Hard Left exists within the Parliamentary system, and that Militant Tendency and everyone else in Labour were no more left-wing than each other would be....erroneous.

On a sidenote; politics is almost as fun as philosophy when it comes to arguing over minute trivia and classification which make normal people look at you blankly and then shuffle away.

If people here have an issue with the term "Hard" or "Far" Left...would they kindly reciprocate and refrain from labelling Brexit supporters and parties such as UKIP as the "Far Right"? In the interests of mutual respect and not being a hypocrite.

The current Labour Party is social-democratic moving towards democratic socialist, and it contains elements of left-libertarianism.

It took the Labour Party nearly 20 years to shed its far left elements concluding with Clause 4, and become electable. IMO they were forced down this path by the pressure of history. The British public genuinely had got a bit sick of unions by the end of the 70s and voted enthusiastically for Thatcher. Union power in the 70s was associated with the oil shock crash, high inflation and such like. In the years and decades that followed, a lot of people suffered economic deprivation, but there were a lot of improvements such as increased efficiency in British Telecom, as a result of privatisation.

I believe the pendulum now has swung the other way.

Right wing power now is associated with the toxic aftermath of the financial crisis. The deprivation has got worse for the lowest classes and is biting into the middle classes (e.g. effective 10% pay drop for nurses and doctors.) Thus the anger has built up. People are sick of austerity. They see it as a cheat forced on them to support the richest in society. They are sick of bad private services like utilities and the railways. Big business, especially banks are very unpopular and don\t know how to make things better. They are ready for a good dose of socialism and nationalisation.

In terms of the Brexit labelling, it's clear that the Leave vote consisted of both left wing and right wing elements, united by their opposition to the EU. That is shown by the UKIP vote collapse which didn't transfer directly into Tory votes last month and was split between left and right parties.

The current Labour Party is social-democratic moving towards democratic socialist

Lol wot?

See the descriptions of these categories on Wikipedia and compare with the current status of the Labour Party.

To put it very generally, social democrats support a strong private industry and good social services within a democratic system. Democratic socialists support a strong nationalised industry and good social services within a democratic system.

The Labour Party abandoned its commitment to national industry under Blair (shedding Clause 4 from its constitution) and now under Corbyn they are moving away form that position back to favouring nationalisation.

If they're different ideologies, it might help to pick more unique names for them. Reversing the words is just lazy and confusing.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Reversing the words is just lazy and confusing.

Welcome to Political Doublespeak 101.

Forget ideology, it's crime we should be worried about.

As I've posted before, rural Scotland, and rural Britain in general, seems to be suffering from a crime wave.

we're an easy target up here.

I say this with the utmost reluctance, but the way things are going, we may need to give sub-postmasters and corner shop owners the legal authority to keep a shotgun under the counter...

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Forget ideology, it's crime we should be worried about.

As I've posted before, rural Scotland, and rural Britain in general, seems to be suffering from a crime wave.

we're an easy target up here.

I say this with the utmost reluctance, but the way things are going, we may need to give sub-postmasters and corner shop owners the legal authority to keep a shotgun under the counter...

Slow police reactions. They don,t have the numbers to cover everywhere.