The London Libertarian

The London Libertarian

About the blog

Commentary and debate on politics, economics and culture from a libertarian perspective. To Libertarian Alliance Website >


Anyone can make individual contributions on any subject covered in this blog by emailing LABlog2017@Yahoo.com

Is this the end of the Labour Party?

Current AffairsPosted by David McDonagh Fri, May 15, 2015 21:12:24

Are the prospects of the Labour Party to ever rule again now dead?

In Spike, Mick Hume says the election destroyed Labour! Hyperbole? Yes, for it still is the second largest party in the House of Commons. But can it ever win power again? The loss of Scotland makes this question way more pertinent than at any time in the Labour Party’s history. It now looks as if Labour has locked itself out of Scotland and if that is the case then it truly might mean that Labour never wins a UK election again.

It is the way that Labour got thrown out of Scotland that makes a comeback difficult. But in any case, as so many others have said, Scotland was encouraged by Labour in the past to go in for an unrealistic amount of welfare, as Greece did in milking Germany but it was to a much lesser extent milking England by the Barnet formula, that Joel Barnet himself has repudiated, but the SNP under a clear pretence of independence, held the EU gave it Germany as a much better cow to milk if ever it got free of England. But the Greeks, who, despite the wonderful Scottish Enlightenment, courted a fondness in Germany with a far greater cultural heritage of 2500 years back, nevertheless Greece queered the pitch with the Germans not only for themselves but for the Scotch too, in the future, for they ensured the Germans were bitten hard enough to make them more than merely twice shy. But the SNP tend to overlook that.

Walter Bagehot in The English Constitution (1867) held that the largely tacit, or unwritten, constitution had its ornamental and functional parts. There are two sorts of politics, ideological and practical. The major parties are largely concerned to be practical, but ideology itself has some practical or functional parts. If we go back to the UK of the 1960s and 1970s, the two major parties had their ideologues as well as their parties, the Labour Party had Tony Benn as an ideologue as well as a practical Minister for Technology where and when he took advice from the civil servants of the time, that had little bearing on his ideological aspect, though it would need to be roughly compatible with it, if both were to flourish.

Dr Johnson set out to gauge the difference between the Whigs and the Tories in the eighteenth century whilst Sir Robert Walpole was, what historians today agree was the first Prime Minister, up to 1742. When others took over, Dr Johnson was rather surprised that they adopted many of the same positions, apart from opposition to war, as Walpole had taken. There was then, as since, a practical continuity between supposedly distinct ideological administrations that tended to share the same experts in the civil service that may not have been somewhat immune to fashion or to ideology as they were supposed to be, but whom certainly saw themselves as mainly practical or functional. Ideology or fashion was, for the most part, if ever quite completely, ornamental rather than functional.

So we might see that quite a bit of this ideological clash that usually takes place between the two major parties, if not all of it, is ornamental rather than functional. However, it can become rather unrealistically tribal with some politicians and it has tended to do so with the Labourites a bit more than with the Tories. In Scotland it emerged that the Labourites demonised the Tories quite successfully, especially after the rise of Mrs Thatcher, whom many in Scotland detested. They successfully ran the Tories out of Scotland by such demonization. But when Blair, later, adopted many of the Tories policies, as so many parties do in the UK’s two party system, this allowed the SNP to say that the Labourites were quasi-Tories, so they were as bad as they themselves had earlier said that the Tories were. This allowed them to see off the Labourites on their own anti-Tory demonization culture. But it is not going to be an easy culture for future Labourites to counter, as the SNP have no need to adopt any earlier policy changes from the Tories. So it looks like Labour have lost Scotland and that some new opposition might rise there against the SNP rather than ever again either Labour or the Tories. Will Scottish Labour do it? It failed to do so this time, and it might never do it. It does not look easy. It is not impossible but nor is it an ordinary setback.

The Economist holds that the Labourites have a threefold task against the SNP in Scotland, the UKIP in the north of England and the Tories in the south [Friday, 15 May 2015 (p30)] but though the three clash the real problem is in Scotland with SNP. Labour has never won without Scotland before and maybe they cannot do it.











  • Comments(2)

Posted by David McDonagh Mon, May 18, 2015 12:06:21

Yes, I recall exaggeration in the media that badly defeated parties cannot come back too, Jan, and I never thought I would join in such an exaggeration; but what has happened in Scotland is different. It can be reversed, of course, but it is no normal setback. It is so great a setback that it has converted even me to think that it might be the end for Labour just as two liberal leaders in 1918 [both statist liberals] and the newly extended electorate [doubled, in fact] was the end of the Liberal Party as a practical party of government for the UK.

Scotland is the big problem. An even worse defeat in the UK, as a whole, to only the Tories could safely rely on a swing against the government to let Labour back in, but both the Tories and Labour now look finished in Scotland and Labour needs Scotland to get back into power but the Tories clearly do not.

Pristine liberal ideas/memes can use both major parties against each other for tax cuts whenever the people realise they are for the best. We do not need a particular party. Though I did not fully spell it out this time [I hope to do so later] no practical party can ever be faithfully wedded to any ideology; any winning ideology can use either or both of the major parties.

I do expect a return to just two major parties but it today looks possible that either the UKIP, or what emerges from it, might become one of them.


Posted by efgd Sun, May 17, 2015 16:51:26

I do believe the same was said about the Labour Party when Margaret Thatcher swept to victory in 1979. Then the seating for the two parties was Cons 339, Lab 268. 2015 was Cons 331, Lab 232. What I think the election seating shows is that Miliband, Ed, failed to be a clear leader with clear policies. The same could have been said of the 1979 election. Jim Callaghan failed to show leadership material. Two words kept coming into mind when thinking about Ed Miliband. One was, yes he is a bit weird and two was, 'what'?

If one considers the SNP who had 11 seats in 1979 and 56 in 2015 the real losers were the LibDems, who received a paltry 8 seats to their 57 seats in 2010.

Blair took Labour into Con Party mindset and it stayed that way till the blustering Brown and the incompetent Ed Miliband took over. Thus it could be said to be irrelevant now. We do not need two Conservative Party's. But we do need a 'proper' Liberal Party to counter the Conservative Party.

Maybe the Labour Party may end up not continuing as a mini-mi social-conservative party but a David Lloyd George type of party if the LibDems do not sort out their allegiances?

End of the Labour Party? Maybe as it stands. Not if it shifts towards a different parameter, as it did under Blair.